Wednesday, November 15, 2000

By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-large

If Tuesday night's results show anything, it's that America feels strongly both ways.

The high turnout and the close result are evidence of a nation that does not know where it wants to go and, if it did know where it wanted to go, wouldn't have a clue as to how to get there.

First, you have an incumbency in Al Gore that can run on a humdinger of an economy.

Regardless of any argument that it is the private sector, not the government, that should get the credit, conventional wisdom says that Americans always vote their wallets. When the economy is good, they usually keep power in the hands of the incumbent party.

It is, then, remarkable beyond words that with one of the most prosperous periods on record behind him, Al Gore could not get a decisive majority. Considering that the entire influence of Hollywood and a strongly biased national news media were in his court, and that he swept the female voters off their feet during the convention, cornering the romance vote, Gore's weak showing is downright embarassing.

Add to that the fact that George W. Bush is admittedly not the strongest Republican standard-bearer in recent history, and I don't see how Al Gore can stand the shame of how poorly his campaign has performed.

But, having said all that, I honestly don't think poor campaigning is entirely to blame. A combination of factors contributed.

First, I think that more voters than usual chose their champions based on pure gut instinct. Sure, there was 10 percent on each side that cast their ballots based on the abortion issue, and 10 or 15 percent more on each side bought into the policy promises presented in the debates.

But I'm betting close to half of the voters reacted to how the candidates affected them on a deeply personal level.

I've heard dozens of people in the last few weeks saying things like: "I just don't trust Gore. I just don't like him," or "I just don't have any confidence in Bush."

Second, I think that among those who based their choice on policy, there is a profound disagreement, and the nation is evenly divided.

Half want more government, half want less. Half think tax cuts are important, and half think taxpayers should reach down deeper and do more for "those less fortunate."

Half are opposed to abortion, or at least feel there should be some degree of limit to choice, and half feel that the right to life begins only when a person takes the first breath of stale, delivery room air.

Half think the so-called end of the cold war also ended the need for a strong defense, and half think that the only way to ensure lasting peace is to remain strong.

Folks, I wonder whether we are suffering from too much success.

Having riches, it is said, often turns into a burden, because the rich person is so consumed with the fear of losing his riches that he can have no inner peace.

The United States is on top of the world right now, economically, militarily, philosophically... Are we focused more on the fear of falling back than we are on building for the future?

Are we like a mountain climber trying to cling to a precarious toehold, too paralyzed with fear to keep moving upward?

Watch CNN for a few days and pay attention to the reporting of the stock market. Most of the commentary is focused not on its strength and how that might be enhanced, but on if and when the bubble might burst.

What we need is for leadership to emerge that has a vision for the future, and can turn our focus to new challenges and goals.

Where might that leadership come from?

You tell me. I mean that literally, not just as a shrugging admission of my own lack of knowledge.

Think about it. Who is out there who can take us to the next level? And if that person exists, can he or she shake the voters out of our fear of success and fear of the future and convince us to let go our toehold and continue our upward climb?

Write me at The Citizen, P.O. Box 1325, Fayetteville 30214, or dhamrick@TheCitizenNews.com.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page