That is about to change. The two Democratic candidates for president are appearing together this week at a New Hampshire town-hall meeting that will be covered by the media jackals as if the primary were next Tuesday, not next February. Then come six more debates in the next three months, each one an opportunity for Democratic voters to kick the candidates’ tires before the primary season begins. In the NEWSWEEK Poll taken last week among Democrats, Gore still leads Bradley 49 percent to 26 percent nationally, but the vice president trails in some polls in New Hampshire and elsewhere–and huge swaths of the electorate know nothing of Bradley yet. When they find out, the national polls are expected to tighten.
Gore is making no secret of his intention to rip Bradley as a disloyal Democrat who didn’t “stay and fight” when the Republicans took Congress and imperiled Democratic values in the mid-1990s. Bradley, while allowing that pro basketball players have sharp elbows, is trying to avoid getting drawn into what he calls “adolescent squabbling.” The fireworks that the press wants are not part of his game plan for the debates. “Excitement?” Bradley snorts. “Have you ever watched any of these things? No, I don’t think they will cause any excitement.”
The conventional explanation for that is simple: neither man exactly lights up the room when he walks in. But there’s another reason why the Gore-Bradley debates may be underwhelming. It’s the George Wallace factor. Wallace used to say that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. As it happens, this is a trendy argument once again. The National Journal asked recently if the 2000 campaign would come down to “Gush versus Bore”; “Saturday Night Live” satirized how much Bush and Gore have in common; Pat Buchanan claimed the two parties are Xerox copies of each other.
Actually, the divisions between Democrats and Republicans are as deep as ever, from the nuclear test-ban treaty to guns, tobacco, abortion, campaign-finance reform, the environment, tax cuts and school vouchers. But the gaps within the Democratic Party seem like nickel-and-dime stuff by historical standards. In 1980 it was liberal Ted Kennedy against moderate incumbent Jimmy Carter. In 1988 it was old liberal Walter Mondale against neoliberal Gary Hart. This time, as Gore himself says, “It’s Coke versus Pepsi.”
It’s ironic that the struggle for the Democratic nomination is boiling down to a taste test. Bradley’s fresher! Gore’s feistier! After all, these two Democrats are both more substantive and thoughtful than the norm. Both actually write their own books, making them almost intellectuals in the swamp of official Washington. Both are cautious, moderate internationalists. Deprived of any real political divisions, this campaign will get personal–fast. “It’s not going to play out on the issues,” says Peter Hart, a polltaker unaffiliated with either candidate. “It’s really going to be much more about who they are.” Hart says his most recent focus group favors Bradley. Undecided voters used words like “genuine” and “authentic” to describe Bradley, “running scared” to describe Gore.
Both men claim to abhor the idea of politics as a game, but they play it anyway. Right now, the game is called pin the conservative tail on the donkey. Gore tries to make Bradley seem too conservative for Democratic primary voters by digging up ancient Bradley votes favoring Ronald Reagan’s budget cuts in 1981 (he opposed Reagan’s tax cuts) and aid to the Nicaraguan contras. Meanwhile, Bradley notes that Gore equivocated this year on the teaching of creationism in Kansas public schools. Bradley is pushing a series of proposals for fighting poverty and expanding health-care coverage that sound much more sweeping than Gore’s. In fact, they simply build on the existing efforts of the Clinton-Gore administration.
The two men parry and thrust with policy proposals that could just as easily be advanced by the other guy. Bradley supports registration of handguns; Gore supports registration of 4-year-olds for universal public prekindergarten. Bradley wants to ban soft money; Gore wants to ban all drilling off the ocean coasts.
The word “liberal” remains verboten, but both candidates still want the scent of it around them during the primaries. Gore, who pushed Clinton to the center on fiscal issues and welfare reform, is moving left on labor and the environment. Bradley, who spent much of his time in the Senate on moderate issues like promoting free trade, wants it known that he opposed the 1996 welfare-reform bill backed by Gore, though he’s not saying he would repeal it. True liberals are in a state of some confusion. Most of the major environmental groups, for instance, won’t endorse either one. Not enough daylight between them.
In the Senate Gore and Bradley voted alike 80 percent of the time. But even that doesn’t convey the basic similarity of their outlook. Bradley’s father, a bank president, worked his way up from humble roots. Gore’s father, a senator, did the same. Bradley spent long hours in the Senate learning everything about the tax code. Gore spent long hours learning everything about nuclear missiles. Neither man was particularly popular there. Gore, who ran for president before he was 40, was seen as hyperambitious; Bradley as aloof.
Expect Gore to continue to make an issue of Bradley’s decision to blast Democrats when he left the Senate in 1996. Bradley responds that he campaigned for 46 Democrats in 1996 and that “it’s a uniquely Washington perspective to say the only place you can serve is Washington.” With the Beltway unpopular, Bradley gets the better of that particular argument.
This is the kind of contest that lies ahead. Who’s the real outsider? Who’s the real fighter for Democratic Party values? The Democrats are fortunate enough to have two knowledgeable candidates who can advance the debate on critical issues. But they begin that debate from the same place ideologically. Which means a campaign already driven by tactics and theatrics will only become more so.
