American democracy at work, and fun to watch

Not since the John F. Kennedy-Richard Nixon election in 1960 have American voters been as undecided at this late stage in a campaign…

Not since the John F. Kennedy-Richard Nixon election in 1960 have American voters been as undecided at this late stage in a campaign. Not all voters, of course, but about 10 to 15 per cent whose decision on November 7th will put Al Gore or George Bush into the White House for the next four years.

Tuesday night's debate in St Louis showed a revitalised Gore mixing aggression with a mastery of facts and detail to pummel his opponent from the opening bell. But Bush, although at first less confident and physically dominated by the taller and bulkier Gore, proved again he can hold his ground against the more experienced debater.

The instant polls showed a tie or a narrow win for Gore but this is a setback for the Vice-President, who had expected to dominate in the three debates and to have built up a commanding lead in the last stretch. Instead, he aroused concern among supporters and derision among opponents for dramatic changes in persona between debates.

It is a puzzle to many commentators why Gore has not been able by now to "close the deal" with an electorate enjoying unprecedented prosperity identified with eight years of Clinton-Gore.

READ MORE

In addition, a majority of voters seem to prefer Gore's policies on healthcare, social security, education and the environment. He is widely recognised to be more experienced, with 24 years of service in Congress and in the White House and better equipped to handle foreign policy.

But on character issues such as trustworthiness and honesty, Bush scores much better in most polls. And after watching the debates, twice as many voters find Bush "more likeable". The polls may yet leave pundits with lots of egg on their faces.

Half of the electorate will not turn out to vote and many of those polled are not paying close attention to what the candidates are saying. The viewership for the three debates does not reveal a country as gripped as it should be by an election that is so important for the US and the world.

Fast moving events at home and abroad may yet galvanise voters faced with the choice of who will lead America in the post-Clinton era. Mr Gore is now embarked on a final campaign based on the theme Prosperity for All, while Wall Street goes decidedly bearish. Not good timing for Gore.

The Middle East crisis will be the backdrop to the closing weeks of the campaign, casting doubt on President Clinton's well-meaning but frustrated efforts to bring permanent peace to that region.

Will voters in such circumstances turn to the more experienced Vice-President or the man who has governed Texas for five years with mixed results? In the debate, Gore frequently challenged Bush's record in Texas on childcare to try to undermine his claim to be a "compassionate conservative". Gore also asked how Bush's mammoth $1.3 trillion tax cut proposal over 10 years could be reconciled with his claims to reform social security and medicare to save them from bankruptcy as the population ages.

Bush preferred to accuse Gore of being a traditional Democrat "big spender" who looks to "big government" to solve problems, rather than respond directly to the criticisms. He conceded his tax cut will mainly favour the richest Americans but it is they who pay most of the taxes, he pointed out. He argued that the complicated Gore tax cut will exclude 50 million taxpayers, whereas everyone will get something under his scheme.

So it will be an election where the candidates have set out clear policy differences. Bush favours a more radical approach with a greater role for the private sector. Gore opts for a safer course while attacking "big business" and striking populist poses which may be quietly dropped after the election.

Foreign policy got little time in last night's debate compared with the previous one but it is hard to detect a fundamental difference between the candidates even if Bush emphasises a more cautious approach to committing American troops to peace enforcement abroad. Bush implies he would be a more decisive leader and points to his more experienced advisers.

On the Middle East, Bush again praised President Clinton for his efforts to defuse the crisis but had nothing to say on how he would work for an eventual settlement.

Gore listed his qualifications going back to his brief service in Vietnam and reminded viewers he had twice broken off campaigning to attend high-level national security meetings on the crisis at the White House.

So now it is up to the "swing voters" in the big mid-west states who have not been able to make up their minds. Bush is sending his formidable but popular mother, Barbara, on the campaign trail to persuade the important women voters that her boy is the one.

Gore is planning daily "kitchen table" discussions with "real families". It's American democracy in action and great to watch.