Supine Neglect
Kate O'Beirne, Ramesh Ponnuru, and John J. Miller
Conventional wisdom holds that the issues in the presidential race favor Al Gore, so George W. Bush has to win on personality. In fact, Bush can gain an advantage on several issues in this race, from Social Security to taxes to prescription drugs. But to the extent that the conventional wisdom is right, it's largely because Bush has let the Democrats choose what "the issues" would be. Bush has neglected, or at least under-emphasized, a number of issues that could help him. RACIAL PREFERENCES Thousands of Americans, on receiving their census forms last spring, questioned the forms' obsession with race. The version sent to most households contained only six queries, two of which asked recipients about the color of their skin. In a country that becomes less racist with each generation-to the point where racism today really can't be described as a major obstacle to black advancement-this seemed improper, even antiquated. A poll by the American Civil Rights Institute found that 77 percent of voters (including 65 percent of blacks) thought the government should quit asking about race. Even when the question was posed in a loaded manner-respondents were told that getting rid of the questions might prevent authorities from identifying some forms of discrimination-58 percent still supported this change (59 percent among blacks). A census occurs during a presidential election only once every 20 years-and here was a gift-wrapped opportunity for George W. Bush to confront the way Washington deals with race. Americans, it is obvious, are hungry for a new approach. They are ready for a separation of race and state-and would welcome a Republican challenge not only to the census questions, but also to that driving force behind the whole racial-spoils system: preferences. Support for racial preferences is a major handicap for the Democrats, because it splits their base. Voters in both California and Washington State-neither one a GOP stronghold-have banned preferences over the last four years. In 1996, black voters in California were three times as likely to support the anti-preferences Proposition 209 as they were to support Bob Dole. Even Joe Lieberman endorsed 209. (He has since retreated, telling members of the Congressional Black Caucus in August: "I have supported affirmative action. I do support affirmative action. And I will support affirmative action.") That's the beauty of a message grounded in the principle of colorblind equal opportunity. If words mean what they say, something like Proposition 209 is impossible to oppose. If the matter were pressed in a presidential campaign, it would immediately throw Democrats on the defensive. Polls consistently show a widespread dislike of racial preferences, and this antipathy crosses demographic lines. A 1996 Public Agenda poll showed that 64 percent of white parents thought majority-black school districts should hire the best teachers available regardless of their race-as did 77 percent of black parents. Republican political consultants usually tell clients that challenging preferences threatens to mobilize liberal voters-as if the Democrats won't resort to ugly racial politics anyway. This is a party that has blamed the GOP for church burnings. It's time to hit back. BILINGUAL EDUCATION George W. Bush probably doesn't need to worry about losing Arizona in November, even though a September poll of registered voters by KAET-TV had him trailing Al Gore in the state by 10 points. It was probably a bad sample, loaded with Democratic respondents. That's all the more reason to consider another one of the poll's findings: a 51 point lead (71 percent to 20 percent) for Proposition 203, a ballot initiative to eliminate bilingual education. It's modeled on California's Proposition 227, which passed two years ago. Opposing bilingual education rallies conservatives and attracts liberal support the way few other "culture war" issues do; as direct-mail firms learned years ago, official English and related causes do well because Republicans aren't the only people willing to write checks for them. Joe Lieberman has been a skeptic on bilingual education, too. Even the New York Times editorial page has been relentlessly critical of such programs. Fighting to repeal bilingual education isn't just good politics, it's good policy. Immigrant students in California already have seen their test scores rise after just two years in the new program. A recent study in New York City found that 54 percent of seventh-grade English learners enrolled in immersion courses posted above-average test scores, compared to 40 percent of their peers in bilingual education. The gap was even wider in math: 70 percent for immersion students, to 51 percent for those in bilingual programs. Nobody can deny that immigrants-and especially their children-need to learn English if they are to flourish in the United States. Making sure the schools teach it to them is a matter of Hispanic empowerment. In fact, if the Republicans don't pick up on this issue soon-the GOP's 1998 nominee for governor of California actually made a commercial against Prop. 227-who's to say the Democrats won't run with it themselves? THE NEW ECONOMY Bush has been strangely silent on a cluster of economic issues that would identify him with the New Economy and the new investor class. Taxes on sales made over the Internet, for example, are very unpopular; exit polls in the primaries showed Republicans and Democrats alike opposing them. To appeal to popular sentiment, however, Bush would have to buck his fellow governors, many of whom are eager to tax the Internet. (As economist Alan Reynolds has pointed out in American Outlook, they are probably overestimating the revenues they would be able to raise.) The governors' plan is an economic and administrative monstrosity, and unconstitutional to boot. Under it, a company that made a sale over the Internet would have to figure out what the sales tax is in each of its customers' hometowns, collect the tax, and send it to the right place. Bush was right to come out for a moratorium on special taxes on the Internet, but he could outflank Gore-who also endorsed the moratorium-by opposing the governors' plan. He could tell the press he was borrowing a good idea from John McCain, who loudly opposed Internet taxes during the primaries. Bush has also failed to capitalize on the most (the only?) promising demographic trend for Republicans: the rise of the new investor class. The number of investors has boomed along with the stock market over the past few years. The new investors have a high propensity to vote, and they are increasingly attracted to free-market policies and the GOP. It is these voters who have made it politically possible for Bush to suggest partially replacing Social Security with individual investment. Bush has proposed eliminating the estate tax, an idea that has become more popular as more Americans have seen the possibility of building substantial portfolios. But Bush could do a lot more. He could, for example, propose universal IRAs in which people could save tax-free for retirement, educational and health expenses, and homeownership. He could also criticize the Clinton-Gore administration's prosecution of Microsoft, and Gore's anti-corporate rhetoric, for hurting the investments of millions of Americans. (Fewer than 20 percent of Americans support breaking up Microsoft.) KYOTO Bush has also passed up the opportunity to criticize Gore's support for the Kyoto global-warming accords. At a time when Gore is promising to take action to bring gas prices down, Bush could point out that Kyoto would require massive tax increases on energy. Some estimates place the total cost of the treaty at $2,000 per year for a family of four. The Kyoto issue would be a good way of reminding voters of Gore's environmental extremism. In Michigan, where polls currently have Bush down several points, Gore's hostility to the internal-combustion engine would have to hurt him. Other voters might be troubled by the loss of sovereignty implicit in Kyoto: The U.S. would be agreeing in advance to be bound by decisions yet to be made by international bodies. The Left doesn't often threaten middle-class interests and values these days. Kyoto does. MILITARY CULTURE In making his case that the state of military readiness has perilously declined under the current administration, Bush delicately avoids one of its most destructive legacies. Clinton's Pentagon appointees have prioritized social engineering over combat effectiveness to promote a feminist agenda that is incompatible with military culture. The Clinton administration has been relentlessly following the advice it paid for from a feminist academic who counseled former Army secretary Togo West. Prof. Madeline Morris wants to see an "ungendered vision" replace the "masculinist" elements of military culture. Hundreds of positions in or near previously closed combat units have been opened to women; basic training has been integrated; there is even an effort underway to integrate submarine crews. Because of abundant evidence of increased disciplinary problems among integrated trainees, a bipartisan commission appointed by the administration unanimously recommended a return to single-sex training, but its findings were ignored. Gender-based recruiting inflates the number of women in uniform, whose attrition rate exceeds that of male recruits. Physical standards have been watered down to accommodate women, a regime of "sensitivity training" has been imposed so boys won't be boys, and a majority of men and women in uniform look across their coed ranks and report that they fear they're not ready for combat. George Bush and Dick Cheney should pledge that their Pentagon will welcome women to serve in all appropriate positions, but combat effectiveness and the lives of young volunteers will not be jeopardized in the service of egalitarian goals hostile to the military ethos. ABORTION A recent bipartisan Battleground poll suggests a lack of intensity among evangelical voters who support George Bush, and in mid September, the governor was down 11 points among non-Hispanic Catholics. In July, a Los Angeles Times poll revealed that about 65 percent of the public didn't know the abortion position of the presidential candidates, and since then voters have doubtless attributed pro-life sentiments (arising from his religious orthodoxy) to Joe Lieberman. Bush's soft-spokenness on abortion imperils his support among social conservatives. Evidence (which seems never to penetrate GOP strategy sessions) makes clear that there is no "pro-choice" majority in favor of Al Gore's position of unrestricted abortion on demand: The L.A. Times poll found 54 percent of the public favoring either the Bush position on abortion or making abortion illegal in all cases. The poll also found evenly divided views on Roe v. Wade, with 43 percent for and 42 percent against-even before the Supreme Court declared that Roe gives abortionists a constitutional right to crush the skull of a partially born infant in order to suck out her brains. Bush's compassionate conservatism should unfailingly include an expression of concern for the unborn, and his frequently expressed desire to usher in a new era of responsibility should extend to reducing the number of abortions by calling on men to support women confronted with unplanned pregnancies. Bush's condemnation of irresponsible men might cut into his Hooters vote, but grateful women might reduce his gender gap. |