Wednesday, October 1, 1997
Gephardt, Gore prepare for candidacy battle
ELECTIONS: Democratic hopefuls begin to play presidential
politics
By Thomas Oliphant
The Boston Globe
On the surface, the appearances of House Minority Leader Richard
Gephardt and Vice President Al Gore at last weekend’s meeting of
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had all the trappings of a
skirmish that could escalate into a battle for the Democratic
presidential nomination in the year 2000.
As such, it was inevitably a battle of the bands, and to that
extent it was no contest. It was Gephardt’s Rolling Stones against
Gore’s Juilliard String Quartet.
But beneath the surface, that is what made the back-to-back
appearances exactly what each man sought. And until someone (not
necessarily Gephardt, by the way) or something (like the economy)
beats him, Gore’s underlying advantage was tangible.
Gephardt played the "Real Democrat," and Gore played the "New
Democrat." So naturally, the DNC cheered the former and applauded
the latter. But these elite Democrats are also politicians, each an
automatic delegate to the national convention, and most of them are
more likely to follow their heads than their hearts when the time
comes.
Nonetheless, the Gore and Gephardt messages neatly drew some
distinctions that are apt to remain as the interminable continuum
called presidential politics flows.
Gore talked results, Gephardt talked values. Gore talked beyond
his audience, Gephardt talked right at it. Gore’s message
anticipates a campaign of succession; Gephardt’s message
anticipates a call for a change.
Gore leaned as heavily as President Clinton did in his
reelection campaign last year on the astonishing performance of the
economy. But he was no less bashful about some of the equally
astonishing social indicators of recent years – crime, welfare
rolls and teenage pregnancy.
And he was every bit the vigorous vice president, selling the
president’s position on campaign finance reform with nary an
apology for his own role in making the case for reform via last
year’s excesses.
And on the divisive topic of the day for Democrats – Clinton’s
request for "fast-track" authority to negotiate trade agreements
that Congress can approve or reject but not amend – Gore was
direct. Exports have led the economy’s recovery, he said, and
Clinton needs new authority to negotiate more deals to break down
barriers to American products and services in emerging world
markets. Clinton’s record, he added, shows he can do it and still
fight to keep repressive labor conditions and environmental
degradation from being the developing world’s trade weapons.
In contrast, Gephardt tends to slide past Clinton in preaching
to a choir about core party values, above all concern for working
families from the middle-class to the poor. This was one audience
that didn’t need reminding that he had stood against the welfare
legislation Clinton signed, against the balanced budget and tax cut
deal he struck with the Republican Congress, and against renewal of
normal trading relations with China.
His first standing ovation came after a pledge to never stop
pushing for universal health insurance. His second came after a
pledge to fight "to the death" any attempts to siphon money from
public education into government vouchers for use in private and
religious schools.
But Gephardt saved most of his rhetoric for trade, which got the
third standing ovation. Complete with a slide show of the greatly
worsened conditions just south of the Mexican border, he argued the
record shows that promises about voluntary improvement have been
hollow.
At a minimum, he declared, fast-track authority must include a
requirement that countries enforce their labor and environmental
laws, and face trade sanctions if they do not.
The debate on trade has just been joined, and the specifics of
the eventual legislation have yet to be negotiated. Gephardt’s
ovation, however, showed why it will take an immense presidential
effort to get anywhere near the 75 Democratic votes in the House
Clinton has targeted, and why at the moment he may not even have
20.
But as fodder for nascent presidential politics, the Gore and
Gephardt messages shared a common, unstated theme – the condition
of the economy, the most important backdrop once a campaign begins
in earnest.
If current conditions, especially as regards jobs and income,
continue through 1999, the economic expansion will be in record
territory for the post-World War II era. Gore would still need to
speak convincingly about the future, but an argument for continuity
would have immense force, both substantively and politically.
Similarly, if the economy stalls out, the anxieties that harder
times always unleash would come into play, from social policy to
trade. Bill Clinton is living testimony to how a pitch for "change"
can work at a time of job and income stagnation.
Gore and Gephardt are nothing like the pols Mike Dukakis beat a
decade ago. Each has used the ensuing years well.
But each must still operate in a larger context, and unless the
economy goes South the current trends give Gore the most running
room. Only as Cassandra does Gephardt makes sense…. the Gore and
Gephardt messages shared a common, unstated theme – the economy,
the most important backdrop (of) a campaign …