Framing the mid-term elections

By Chris Morrison

During the 1996 United States presidential election, Republican nominee Bob Dole tried to make President Clinton’s ethical problems the issue (and this was before the whole Monica Lewinsky story became known). But the American people voted en masse for Clinton. Why? Well, they did not care about Whitewater or Paula Jones. They cared about money. “It’s the economy, stupid,” was the mantra of Clinton’s suburban cadre of “soccer moms.”

Following September 11, President Bush tried to make terrorism and security the issues. With approval ratings constantly in the 70s, one might think the American people agree with him. But sadly, at least for Bush, they do not.

Recent polls, even those taken by Bush’s team, show that the number one issue for Americans going into the Nov. 5 mid-term elections is the economy, followed by security and education. To understand why, one must look at what has happened to the once vibrant economy in the past few years. In 1996, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, an indicator of investment on Wall Street, was at 6,437. By 1999 it had reached the 10,000 mark. Brokers and investors the nation over celebrated. CNBC ran a special documentary on the history of the Dow. News reports were done from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange discussing how momentous an occasion it was. Technology stocks were booming. A website named drkoop.com was valued at $1 billion (it was sold last July for $186,000). The old economy, based heavily on raw materials and manufacturing, was giving way to the new one, based on technology.

But it was all a bubble. Companies like Amazon saw their stock prices soar but still struggled to make any profits. Other companies, like Enron, whose Chair and CEO Kenneth Lay is a friend of President Bush’s, falsely reported earnings in order to drive up stock prices so those holding stock options could cash in and make tens of millions off a company that was simultaneously losing billions. And who could forget the seemingly endless string of CEOs, CFOs and brokers paraded daily before congressional hearings on the collapse of these companies? Well, the American people have not forgotten. Many also realize that President Bush is more like the businessmen they see testifying on C-SPAN every day than anyone would like to admit. So why is President Bush so adamant about pushing the “War on Terror” when his citizens care more about their jobs? Because he has an election to win.

The Nov. 5 election decides who controls both houses of Congress. As it stands, the Republicans hold a slim lead in the House of Representatives while the Democrats hold a one-seat edge in the Senate. In order to distract to voting public away from domestic concerns, like a stagnant economy, the environment and education, Bush and his chickenhawk cabinet are bringing up the bogeyman that is Saddam Hussein. They say Hussein has nuclear capabilities and could strike at America anytime. They say he’s a regional menace, a dictator worse than Hitler, and must be removed from power in order to bring stability to the Persian Gulf. They say the Republicans, not the Democrats, are the ones with the wherewithal to remove Hussein once and for all.

In 1991,the first President Bush was coming off a victory against Saddam Hussein. His approval rating spiked at 88 per cent. He harped on about a “New World Order” and a “Thousand Points of Light.” But come 1992, the American economy was in recession, and instead of focusing on that, Bush continued to live in the afterglow of his triumph over Hussein. He lost to Bill Clinton. Bush the younger learned from his old man, and instead of ending the war, he is intent on expanding it and keeping the minds of the American voters occupied with something other than their dwindling paycheques. I think he learned the wrong lesson from his old man. Despite his popularity, the next presidential election is two years away, and if Bush ignores the economy like his father did, he may be remembered as a Nero, not a Caesar.

Leave a comment