Election 2000

March 27, 2000

Now that the candidates for the presidential election are certain, many voters are starting to complain about their selections. This feeling of "buyers remorse" was inevitable. But the complaint that there is no difference in the candidates is one that cannot be sustained.

Paul Gigot, writing in the Wall Street Journal, talks about the two different political philosophies confronting the voters. He believes that "this election is shaping up to be the most ideologically significant since 1980." There are lots of reasons.

"For starters, November will be as close as America gets to a parliamentary election¾that is, one with the entire government at stake. The White House winner will probably also carry the House of Representatives, and eventually much of the Supreme Court."

Another reason is the ideological differences between the candidates. "Al Gore now leads a center-left coalition bidding to revive activist government after the Clinton Consolidation. George W. Bush leads a center-right coalition that hasnít controlled the White House and Congress at the same time since 1954. Both parties have a pent-up desire to strut their policy stuff."

Paul Gigot argues that Al Gore is taking even more liberal stands than his predecessor. He says the Democrat "nominee is even confident enough to renew the 1992 call for universal health care"and "wants to expand [entitlement]¾Medicare with Ďfreeí prescription drugs, Social Security by using nonpayroll tax revenues to subsidize it (a policy opposed even by FDR)."

Paul Gigot warns voters to be aware that the difference might not be that visible. "One irony of the coming campaign will be that these agendas are more ideological than either candidate will want to admit.Ē So you will have to look closely to see the differences, but believe me the differences are significant.

Iím Kerby Anderson of Probe Ministries, and thatís my opinion.