Clinton Era ratifies Reagan Revolution

Many pundits are wondering about the ability of our new president to
govern given the extreme closeness of Election 2000. After all, not only
was the presidential election a toss-up, the Senate is 50-50; the House
is closely divided; and, less than six in 10 voters are convinced that
the man going to the White House actually won the election.

This situation will certainly test the political skills of the man
who says he is a "uniter, not a divider." Fortunately for the man from
Austin, there is plenty of common ground for our new president to build
upon. Ironically, the strongest evidence of common ground comes from the
campaign of the Democratic challenger.

As Election Day drew near, Al Gore shifted his rhetoric on taxes. For
months, he had been trying to convince voters that his plan for targeted
tax cuts were better than the larger, across the board, tax cuts
proposed by George W. Bush. Voters weren't convinced, so the vice
president decided to try another approach.

Down the stretch, Gore came up with a new line. He claimed that both
he and his opponent were offering targeted tax cuts and that the
only difference was who they targeted. While Bush voters may dispute the
accuracy of Gore's line, it was a very effective piece of rhetoric and
helped the Democrat gain ground on the issue.

TRENDING: 'Impeach Barack Obama': Lindsey Graham suggests liberals' worst nightmare

The real significance of Gore's tactical shift on taxes and other
issues is not how it affected the election, but what it tells us about
the mood of the country.

Vice President Gore switched gears on the tax issue because Americans
liked the idea of tax cuts for everyone more than targeted tax cuts. One
reason for this preference is a lingering distrust of politics and
politicians. When they hear candidates talk about targeting tax cuts,
most voters assume that means someone else's taxes will be cut.

It's hard to overstate this level of distrust. A few years ago, when
president Clinton and Republican congressional leaders got together to
announce a plan to balance the budget, cut spending, and cut taxes, only
1 percent of voters believed them. In fact, when asked, voters were
twice as likely to think that their own taxes would go up rather than
down.

Another message coming from Gore's tactical shift on taxes is that
the political insiders misunderstood the public on this issue. All
throughout the campaign, we heard that voters weren't motivated by tax
cuts any more. Actually, voters still want tax cuts, but they just don't
believe any politicians will deliver upon this particular campaign
promise. During the height of the campaign, just four out of 10
Americans believed that taxes would be cut even if Bush won the White
House and Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

Looked at from another perspective, seven out of 10 Americans say
that they want taxes and spending to go down over the next five years.
However, seven out of 10 also say that they expect taxes and spending to
keep going up.

The pundits missed another aspect of the tax debate. Washington
politicians typically say that voters are motivated by greed when they
favor tax cuts. The pols also assume that there is a conflict between
the public desire for tax cuts and for balanced budgets. In reality,
voters view both tax cuts and balanced budgets as complimentary tools
that both help to slow the growth of government spending. Voters
overwhelmingly prefer lower government spending over balanced budgets as
a policy goal.

So, the public favors tax cuts, they're cynical about politicians and
the Washington insiders misread the public mood. Sounds a lot like when
Ronald Reagan was president.

In fact, that leads us to the real lesson of Campaign 2000.

The Clinton administration did not succeed in repudiating the Reagan
legacy. Instead, the Clinton administration ended up ratifying the
Reagan Revolution.

When Bill Clinton declared that the "Era of Big Government is over,"
he wasn't stating his policy preference. Instead, he was bending to a
political reality created by the Gipper. From that moment forward, both
Republicans and Democrats began to fight over their policy differences
within the political framework created by America's voters and
articulated by President Reagan.

In a sense, Clinton played the same role that Dwight Eisenhower
played in ratifying the New Deal. When Ike took office in 1952, he was
the first GOP president in 20 years. Rather than trying to undo the New
Deal, he accepted it along with the underlying premise of a more active
federal government. Once that premise was off the table politically, the
next presidential election was a squeaker with John Kennedy edging
Richard Nixon by less than a single percentage point in the popular
vote.

When Bill Clinton became president, Democrats had won that office
only once in the previous 28 years. He initially tried to challenge the
Reagan premise that voters were tired of an ever-expanding federal
government. Voters then gave the GOP control of Congress and Clinton
accepted the new limitations on government. As a result, the next
presidential election was a squeaker because both Republicans and
Democrats have now accepted the underlying premise of the Reagan
Revolution as political reality.

The bottom line is that the public is demanding improved performance
from government at a lower and less intrusive cost. They're used to
getting more for less in the private sector and now want the same from
the political sector of society.

Where will this lead us? That's unknown, just as the election of 1960
could never have foreshadowed the '60s. However, we do know that there
is a lot of common ground among voters. Even on issues as politically
sensitive as Social Security, the voters are coming close to speaking
with one voice. Just about everyone agrees that current retirees and
those about to retire should be fully protected under any reform plan.
At the same time, a solid majority agrees with the premise that workers
should be given more control of their own retirement plans. Again, we
don't know how this will work out politically, but we do know that there
is common ground to build upon.

So, the challenge for our new president will be to build political
unity out of the common ground that exists among the public. If he
succeeds, he and his party will also succeed. If he fails, it may be a
long time before Republicans gain control of both the White House and
the Congress again.