Three Campaign Myths

As the fall 2000 campaign gets into gear, the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates will be sure to keep the spin hot and heavy, especially in the debates (whenever they are). But before you try to separate the fact from the fiction, here are some myths which are important to debunk before we help choose the world's Most Powerful Man (and his sidekick).

Myth #1: Joe Lieberman is a moderate. When Al Gore '69 chose the Connecticut senator, the media and Democratic faithful were gleeful about Lieberman's supposedly centrist message. The truth is, however, Lieberman isn't nearly as moderate as he is portrayed. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) has given him a gold-star rating, second only to Massachusetts' favorite Senator, Edward M. Kennedy '54-'56, for voting with them 95 percent of the time.

Supporters have crooned that it's the other five percent that matters. Well, you can kiss even that five percent goodbye. All of Lieberman's centrist leanings have been ditched for the position of number two yes-man. In 1995, Lieberman was attacked by Jesse Jackson as "irresponsible" for his bold statements against affirmative action and Proposition 209, the California initiative against racial preferences. Lieberman said that "the current system of group preferences has to end. For after all, if you discriminate in favor of one group on the basis of race, you thereby discriminate against another group on the basis of race." He concluded that "you can't defend policies that are based on group preferences." Fast forward to the Democratic National Convention this summer, when Lieberman quickly repudiated these earlier comments. He announced that he had changed his views, saying that he "did not understand the language" of Proposition 209, which he had so eloquently supported in 1995. This radical departure from his previous position, as the National Review put it, "makes him either look like an idiot or a coward."

Lieberman has also swallowed his convictions on another issue that most American agree on: school choice. When he was grilled about his anti-school voucher stance on August 14, he said, "If you ask me personally, I'm still for vouchers. But I understand how it is when you are vice-president." The next day, when a crowd of teacher's union members at the Democratic convention began to get testy about vouchers: "If you want me to stay silent on the issue, vote Gore/Lieberman in September." Integrity? Nobody ever said politicians were honorable. Joe Lieberman used to be the exception. Not anymore. The voters should see the election as it is--a contest between liberal and conservative, not between "integrity" and "compassion."

Myth #2: Bush's tax plan is safe for the economy. Much has been made about the Bush tax plan, since the Texas Governor has revealed precious little about any of his other policy proposals. The question is whether Bush's proposals are really skewed towards the rich, as the Democrats like to complain. If so, the failure of supply-side that characterized the Reagan era and contributed to a massive federal budget deficit could rear its ugly head again.

Unfortunately, this is the case. About half of the $1.6 trillion tax cut--that's more than half of the projected budget surplus, which is itself a wobbly estimate and is already being spent by Congress--will go to families with an income over $250,000. Princeton economist Paul Krugman estimates that even a family making $80,000 a year would get less than $20 per week off its taxes once the plan was fully phased in; a family making $1 million would get $1,000 per week. Giving surplus money back to the people is the backbone of self-government, but the money must be accounted for first. Even Bush officials admit that the figures Bush use in campaign speeches are less than the actual numbers necessary to pull the tax cut off.

Myth #3: Al Gore and Bill Clinton can take credit for the economic boom of the last decade. In 1994, Bill Clinton was in the dumps. Hillary's attempt at socializing health care had failed miserably, and two years of a Democratic White House and a Democratic Congress had produced a 34 percent approval rating, a still slumping economy and many sleepless nights. It also led to the Republican Revolution of 1994--which brought a balanced budget and tax relief. The economy began to take off, and by re-election year 1996, Clinton was on his way to a second term.

In the end, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are solely or even partly responsible for the shape of the economy. The rise of the new economy and the increased productivity that its technology brought were more responsible than anything either branch of government could devise. Yet it was the Republicans' angry prodding--and the occasional shut-down of the government--that forced Clinton's hand in addressing fiscal responsibility.

A lot of the people I talked to this summer, from my mom to my barber, believed the last myth about the "Clinton/Gore economic miracle." Yet they were wrong. Which is why, when you hear the talking heads at the stump, it always helps to be a little skeptical.

Vasant M. Kamath '02, a Crimson editor, is a government concentrator in Winthrop House.