Schemers is a recent political science graduate from UCLA.
By Christopher Schemers
Two years ago, President Clinton appeared ready to join the long
list of one-term Democratic presidents who have occupied the White
House since it belonged to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Today, only Robert J. Dole believes that Mr. Clinton could lose
his bid for re-election to our nation’s highest political office
(Except, of course, for Ross Perot, who believes that his 5 percent
showing in the polls could experience a meteoric rise any day
now).
Unfortunately, in this year’s presidential contest there appears
to be no contest at all  and no real choice for voters. This
truth is reflected by Mr. Dole’s inability to stitch together an
electoral coalition. Voters wonder why they should elect the former
majority leader when they can have the current president stay on
for another four years and carry out the same agenda.
Both candidates are pushing for substantial tax cuts. Each
promises to quickly balance the budget. Neither proposes
substantial gun-control measures. And while Mr. Dole has responded
to the nation’s illegal drug problem with a mouthful of slogans,
Mr. Clinton has responded with a sermon lacking substance. Over and
again, it appears that both men are speaking each other’s lines. Is
there any wonder why so many Americans choose to sit elections
out?
Democracy demands that voters have substantive choices. In this
election, our two parties  at least on the national level
 are not offering us those choices. Instead, they each seek
to attract the median voter, that hypothetical voter that sits in
the middle of the electorate. To this end, the parties employ
massive polling.
The result of this warped process is a contest between
candidates that have been crafted according to polls instead of a
contest between leaders with different visions for our nation; the
very meaning of democracy is corrupted and most Americans are left
unsatisfied.
Our political parties seem to believe that this is what
Americans want.
If that was the case, we would elect the best pollsters our tax
dollars could buy and cut out middlemen like Mr. Clinton and Mr.
Dole.
Americans, however, do not want to be pandered to at every step
in the game. Certainly, we want responsive legislators and
executives. But we also want leaders that will help us make the
difficult choices that modern nations must make. This task requires
our leaders to have vision and conviction  two qualities that
seem absent from the current contenders.
I remember a Bob Dole, running in the 1988 presidential primary,
that refused to sign a pledge against new tax increases, believing
that it was irresponsible. This time around, with a national debt
that is bigger than ever, candidate Dole hopes to charm voters with
a 15 percent tax cut.
In a similar reversal, Mr. Clinton has abandoned his calls for
comprehensive health care coverage for all Americans. Indeed, he
has almost entirely steered clear of the issue that was a
cornerstone of his bid for the presidency only four years ago.
In this election, Americans do not have much of a choice. The
controversial issues  like campaign finance reform, corporate
downsizing, comprehensive health coverage and aid to America’s
underclass  will not be decided. Both Mr. Dole and Mr.
Clinton have decided that they would rather hinge their fortunes on
a game of personality and rhetoric.
Sadly, as we stand at the edge of this century plotting our
course to the next millennia, it is the controversial issues that
need to be addressed.
Perhaps it is time for our candidates to write their own
lines.