Politicking aside electoral process still matters
Lauren Robinson-Brown
Pollsters, media personalities and highly-paid campaign consultants have managed to blur the stark differences between the U.S. presidential candidates, but the Nov. 7 election is critical and will impact the lives of everyday Americans, Princeton political scientists agreed.
In a forum, "The Election and Why It Matters," that drew students and community members to the Woodrow Wilson School on Oct. 16, Professor Larry Bartels debunked myths that suggest the political process is broken, while Professor Fred Greenstein outlined key observations about the candidates, their differences and their likely presidential leadership styles.
Both professors agreed that there are clear, partisan differences between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George Bush, and concluded that these differences will change the course of history through the public policy decisions the next president makes. The Democrat and the Republican contrast most, Greenstein said, on how they would handle issues related to Supreme Court nominations, taxes, health care, Social Security, the environment, national security, campaign finance and guns.
The "election will make a great deal of difference," Greenstein said, knocking third party candidates and others who try to convince voters that, as George Wallace once said, there is "not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties." For example, he noted that three Supreme Court justices are age 70 or older, and juxtaposed Bush's model of a choice justice, Antonin Scalia, with Gore's, the late Thurgood Marshall.
In the end, Bartels said "I, and most political scientists, think Gore is going to win," primarily due to the fact that he is an incumbent running in a period of economic growth. Greenstein said, "it's a very tight race," but seemed to affirm Bartels' prediction: "If he says it, it must be true. He is the expert."
The real truth, Bartels suggested, is found in having faith in American voters who generally do pick their presidents based on such factors as the state of the economy and broad issue stands. Using charts and empirical data, Bartels asserted that, contrary to popular myths: election turnout has been constant not declining for the past 25 years; voters are much more partisan not less than in the last 50 years; election outcomes are less volatile not more now than at most points since 1870; money, charisma and campaign strategies have marginal not major impact; and election results do matter.
For example, Bartels noted that political consultant Dick Morris convinced Bill Clinton to spend $85 million on targeted campaign commercials in 1996. However, in states where he did better than in the 1992 election, Clinton only did 1.5 percent better in the states where commercials aired yet 2 percent better in states without the commercials. Bartels said myths are pervasive because consultants make a lot of money convincing politicians that they need their advice to win elections. However, he said, votes are drawn by the state of the economy and by the handling of pertinent issues.
"There are important consequences to the electoral process," Bartels said. "If people would bear that in mind, they would be less cynical and less frivolous about the process."
Greenstein reminded the audience of times of crisis when leadership styles changed America's future, including John Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis and Lyndon Johnson's handling of Vietnam. He then used Jimmy Carter's administration as an example of a failed presidency, saying he could not deliver upon his ambitious goals. "Incompetent presidents cause a lot of trouble," Greenstein said.
Using "six yardsticks" outlined in his book, "The Presidential Difference," Greenstein said effective presidents must have "eloquence" and "effective use of the bully pulpit." He called both Gore and Bush "lackluster communicators."
But when it comes to organizational skills, he gave Bush the edge, saying he would run a "tighter ship" because he is a "big state governor," his campaign is more organized and he benefited from observing his father's "reasonably organized" presidency. In one of two jabs at the Clinton presidency, Greenstein likened it to a "small child's soccer team" where "no one has an assigned position and everybody chases the ball." This disorganization would not benefit Gore, he said.
Assessing political skill, he gave Bush higher marks for his coalition building, saying Gore's strength in the Senate was in enunciating issues rather than brokering outcomes. But Gore is stronger in policy vision, Greenstein said, noting that Bush relies upon advisers and keeps "very little policy in his head." In cognitive style and capacity, he called Gore "a workaholic at using his mind" and said Bush hasn't made it as much of a priority.
Lamenting White House scandals including Watergate and the Lewinsky affair, Greenstein emphasized the importance of emotional intelligence and chastised both Richard Nixon and Clinton for not having the maturity to manage their emotions constructively. He said neither Bush nor Gore seemed "worrisome" in this area.
After their remarks, the professors were asked questions such as what impact Ralph Nader's candidacy and the Middle East conflict might have on the election. Greenstein said Nader may cost Gore the election, while Bartels thought the impact minimal. Both said the Middle East situation should benefit the incumbent Gore.
|
October 23, 2000 Contents • Neuroscientists
put heads together to develop new theory on
depression • Trussell and colleagues call for better HIV prevention • Alumnus
wins Nobel in economics • Committee
has full complement • Community
Day/Staff Day was Oct. 14
|
