Bush And Gore: Perfect Winners of a Perfect Race. Almost

Jonathan Rauch | March 18, 2000

National Journal, March 18, 2000

"I can't imagine a worse process, can you? Three more months of meaningless primaries! Eight months until the general election! It all drags on and on and costs so much, and what's the point? The candid candidates are out; the real winners aren't George W. Bush and Al Gore, but big money and party machines. I tremble for my country, darling. Do pass me one of those delightful little canapé things." The primary campaign was as perfect a contest as democracy has produced -- which is to say, not too bad.

On the contrary, I said, passing the little canapé things. I can hardly imagine a better process.

"You're joking, right?"

Not at all. The primary campaign of 1999 and 2000 was as perfect a nominating contest as American democracy has yet produced -- which is to say, not too bad.

"Surely you don't defend this crazy primary system? Why, it isn't a system at all."

It is senseless, of course. But so is politics and so is life, and so, above all, is the presidency, which requires its holder to negotiate four to eight years of surprises, reversals, frustrations, foul-ups, and dirty tricks. Thanks to being dragged through the nominating process, the greenhorn Texas governor and the wind-up Vice President became distinctly better at managing senselessness; former Sen. Bill Bradley showed that senselessness isn't his m�tier; current Sen. John McCain lost his cool under pressure and made mistakes. The crazy system is a magnifying glass that exposes flaws mercilessly. If New Hampshire didn't exist, we would have to invent it.

"But the race started too early and then finished before most states could even vote. The British finish their campaigns in six weeks."

Actually, this was the year when America's parties blundered their way toward a home-grown equivalent of the British system. In a parliamentary system, the parties choose leaders, often in sharp contests between the center and the edges. The leaders then spend months organizing their parties and sharpening their messages before finally facing the electorate. In practice, Tony Blair campaigned for years, not months, before finally winning the British election of 1997.

The process in America this year did something quite a lot like that. First the party insiders chose their favorites, and then the favorites faced stiff challenges, and now both nominees will build their platforms, organize their parties, and probe each other's weaknesses -- just what British party leaders do between elections. By November, any voter who cares at all will know as much as any political system could reveal about George W. Bush and Al Gore.

"They're Tweedledee and Tweedledum, you know. You call this a choice?"

I do. The primary process offered every conceivable kind of candidate, plus Alan Keyes. You could have a tax cut, no tax cut, a flat tax, or no tax; you could have gays in the military, gays in the closet in the military, or gays driven out of the military with a sharp stick. If you wanted a candidate who pandered to racist whites, this was your lucky year; and if you wanted one who pandered to racist blacks, this was also your lucky year.

The two winners aren't alike, either. Far from it. They can't both be right about abortion, or school choice, or the budget surplus, or gays in the military, or -- most important -- humanitarian intervention in conflicts abroad. You want a Big Choice? Gore has called America's involvement in Kosovo a "moral test." "Our strategic interests are important," he said in 1999, "but so are our moral interests." Phooey, says Bush: "We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in nations outside our strategic interest." Bush has said point-blank, twice, that he would not send U.S. troops to avert a genocide in Rwanda; Gore's boss has effectively apologized to the Rwandans for not having intervened. If that's not a choice, I've never seen one.

"You know, though, it was all about money in the end. Bush didn't beat McCain; the money did."

Oh, money mattered, all right, as it always has and always will; but the pleasant surprise was that so many other things mattered more. Bradley attained financial parity with Gore early on and held it through the race, and in the crucial last quarter of 1999 he outraised and outspent Gore by a wide margin -- all to no avail. And Steve Forbes' $40 million got him . . . where?