Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Oct. 27, 2000 / 28 Tishrei, 5761

George Will

George Will
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Candidates condescending -- "You've spent a quarter-century in public service and have worked a lot on these issues, obviously have mastered a lot of details of them. When you look across the stage, are you frustrated at all?"

--Question to Al Gore, after the third debate, on ABC's "Good Morning America"

Clawed by such questions (or are they genuflections?) from the tigers of the media, Al Gore knows his message is getting through. It is getting through the media in their role as his campaign's megaphones. The distilled essence of his campaign is:

Voters, I am going to speak slowly so you can follow this. You simply have no choice. You must vote for me because my opponent is an imbecile.

For example, George W. Bush's principal foreign policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice, says Bush favors termination of the U.S. peacekeeping role in the Balkans. Surely this is an idea about which intelligent people can differ. However, Gore responds that the idea is indicative of a failure of "understanding." His implication is that Bush (and presumably Rice, former provost of Stanford) cannot fathom serious matters.

The "Good Morning America" question implicitly commends Gore for being such a good sport about the intellectual slumming involved in debating the doltish two-term governor of the second-most populous state. The question illustrates the extent to which Gore's campaign has become an exercise in undisguised condescension. Democrats have done this before.

In 1952 and 1956 the Democratic nominee was an early prototype of Gore. Adlai Stevenson, governor of Illinois, was thought--it is now not clear why--to be quite an intellectual. Today Michael Barone, editor of the Almanac of American Politics and of "Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan," notes that when Stevenson died the only book on his bedside table was the Social Register. However, Stevenson, like Gore, was susceptible to strange ideas supposedly grounded in science.

After Gore offered himself as a presidential candidate in 1988, and the electorate emphatically said "No, thank you," Gore responded by writing a book, "Earth in the Balance," the theme of which is: Unless you people listen to me, you are doomed. In 1956 Stevenson suggested that the earth might literally be in the balance. He said (Oct. 26, in Rock Island, Ill.) that his opponent, Dwight Eisenhower, favored nuclear weapons tests "that can shake the earth's axis."

Liberal intellectuals disdained Eisenhower. Stevenson (unlike Gore) spoke elegantly. Eisenhower's spoken syntax (he was a graceful writer) was sometimes indecipherable. Eisenhower won two landslides. The intelligentsia said the bovine electorate had been beguiled by Eisenhower's smile.

In 1980 Democrats again said voters really had no choice. Ronald Reagan was a simpleton. Reagan won handily. The intelligentsia, happiest when condescending, clung to the Smile Theory of History.

However, this year's election may turn on an aesthetic judgment. Demeanor may matter, and maybe it should.

American politics usually has low ideological octane, so other calculations, such as likability ("I like Ike" was the ubiquitous slogan in 1952), can matter a lot. However, such calculations can carry an unarticulated ideological component.

In the nation's formative era, serious men gave serious thought to the presidential demeanor proper for a republic. How should President Washington be addressed? How should he be approached at levees and fetes, how should he respond? The founding generation understood that presidential demeanor might carry philosophic content.

Now, try this thought experiment. Imagine that you watched the debates, particularly the first and third debates, with the sound muted. You would have seen two strikingly different demeanors--demeanors denoting political sensibilities.

Bush's ambling on the stage and his low-voltage delivery of his words exhibited a kind of behavioral modesty, analogous to and expressive of conservatism's modest expectations for the uses of government. Gore, for whom the debate rules were not a controlling legal authority, strode and gesticulated and generally overflowed with the sort of confidence with which liberalism would wield government for grant purposes.

First radio (Franklin Roosevelt became, in the words of impresario George S. Kaufman, "that grand old pal of the airwaves") and then television (the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 was the first national coming-together around the electronic hearth) contributed to the inflation of the president into the constant commentator and commiserator about everything. This involves Americans in a peculiar (or so Americans once would have thought) intimacy with presidents.

Which is why a candidate's demeanor, as an indicator of political sensibility and as an unavoidable presence, should matter.

Comment on JWR contributor George Will's column by clicking here.


10/23/00: No Partners For Peace
10/20/00: Talking peace with thugs
10/11/00: A feast of retreats
10/10/00: .. And what's gotten into the Danes?
10/05/00: The Agony of Debate
10/02/00: Senate Canvas
09/28/00: Milosevic: Not Another Saddam
09/25/00: Blaming the Voters
09/22/00: Saying No to the Euro
09/18/00: Farewell, Mr. Moynihan
09/14/00: When 'Choice' Rules
09/12/00: Colombia Illusions
09/08/00: Will He Spend It All?
09/04/00: Back in the U.S.S.R.
08/31/00: Stonewalling School Reform
08/28/00: Uphill for a California Republican
08/24/00: Sauerkraut Ice Cream
08/21/00: The Partial-Birth Censors
08/18/00: A Party to Prosperity
08/14/00: The National Scold on the Stump
08/10/00: The Thinking Person's Choice
08/07/00: The GOP of Powell And Rice
08/03/00: Panic in the Gore Camp
07/27/00: . . . Both Radical and Reassuring
07/06/00: Harry Potter: A Wizard's Return
07/03/00: Recalling the Revolution
06/29/00: An Act of Judicial Infamy
06/26/00: Life, Liberty and ... the Pursuit of Foxes
06/21/00: Fumble on Prayer
06/19/00: The unified field theory of culture
06/15/00: Schools Beset by Lawyers And Shrinks
06/12/00: Missile Defense Charade
06/07/00: The Grandparent Dissent
06/05/00: Liberal Condescension
06/01/00: Great Awakenings
05/30/00: Suddenly Social Security
05/25/00: Forget Values, Let's Talk Virtues
05/22/00: AlGore the Hysteric
05/15/00: Majestic Avenue
05/11/00: Just How Irrational Is the Exuberance?
05/08/00: Home-Run Glut
05/04/00: A Lesson Plan for Gore
05/01/00: The Hijacking of the Primaries
04/28/00: The Raid in Little Havana
04/24/00: Tinkering Again
04/17/00: A Judgment Against Hate
04/13/00: Tech- Stock Joy Ride
04/10/00: What the bobos are buying
04/06/00: A must-read horror book
04/03/00: 'Improving' the Bill of Rights
03/30/00: Sleaze, The Sequel
03/27/00: How new 'rights' will destroy freedom
03/23/00: Death and the Liveliest Writing
03/20/00: Powell is Dubyah's best bet
03/16/00: Free to Be Politically Intense
03/13/00: Runnin', Gunnin' and Gambling
03/09/00: And Now Back to Republican Business
03/06/00: As the Clock Runs Out on Bradley
03/02/00: Island of Equal Protection
02/28/00: . . . The Right Response
02/24/00: Federal Swelling
02/22/00: Greenspan Tweaks
02/17/00: Crucial Carolina (and Montana and . . .)
02/10/00: McCain's Distortions
02/10/00: The Disciplining of Austria
02/07/00: Free to Speak, Free to Give
02/02/00: Conservatives in a Changing Market
01/31/00: America's true unity day
01/27/00: For the Voter Who Can't Be Bothered
01/25/00: The FBI and the golden age of child pornography
01/20/00: Scruples and Science
01/18/00: Bradley: Better for What Ails Us
01/13/00: O'Brian Rules the Waves
01/10/00: Patron of the boom
01/06/00: In Cactus Jack's Footsteps
01/03/00: The long year
12/31/99: A Stark Perspective On a Radical Century
12/20/99: Soldiers' Snapshots of the Hell They Created
12/16/99: Star-Crossed Banner
12/13/99: Hubert Humphrey Wannabe
12/09/99: Stupidity in Seattle
12/06/99: Bradley's most important vote
12/03/99: Boys will be boys --- or you can always drug 'em
12/01/99: Confidence in the Gore Camp
11/29/99: Busing's End
11/22/99: When We Enjoyed Politics
11/18/99: Ever the Global Gloomster
11/15/99: The Politics of Sanctimony
11/10/99: Risks of Restraining
11/08/99: Willie Brown Besieged
11/04/99: One-House Town
11/01/99: Crack and Cant
10/28/99: Tax Break for the Yachting Class
10/25/99: Ready for The Big Leagues?
10/21/99: Where honor and responsibility still exist
10/18/99: Is Free Speech Only for the Media?
10/14/99: A Beguiling Amateur
10/11/99: Money in Politics: Where's the Problem?
10/08/99: Soft Thinking On Soft Money

© 2000, Washington Post Writer's Group