TWO DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION

Victor Bloom MD

Writing this two days before the election, I will try to predict who will win and by how much. The media have been full of polls, pols and animated discussions. I have tried to select the most discerning essays and have lighted upon one in the New York Times by liberal pundit Frank Rich, and another from the Washington Post by a more conservative journalist, Charles Krauthammer. Both of these deserve to be taken seriously and I will quote from each and comment accordingly.

I am struck by the liberal columnist Frank Rich. He states:

Whatever happens on Tuesday, the presidential race remains a contest over character.... Democrats are having fits that Mr. Bush, whom they see as a nincompoop, has a serious shot at winning. But the Texas governerís unexpected prowess cannot be attributed merely to the staggering ineptitude of Mr. Gore's candidacy.

He goes on to say that, ìMr. Bush, who applies his selective memory equally to his personal history and the countryís may have actually caught the cultural wave of the moment. Love it or leave it, we just may be living in George W.ís America. Itís a happy place for many people, including Mr. Bush, who has governed Texas only during prosperous times. Not only are the skies not cloudy all day, but fewer and fewer Americans remember what clouds look like.î

ìIn George W.ís America, we are inured not only to high employment, low inflation and a high Dow, but also to a whole new faith in economic invulnerability. A company like Amazon need not turn a profit to be a great American success story, and, whatever Napsterís fate, many believe that there will alreadys be a free lunch.î

In other words, if America votes in George W., it is because we are in la-la land. He is said to work bankerís hours, while Gore works 24/7 and lets us see the sweat. Rich goes on to describe Gore as a ìhyperventilating fount of worst-case scenarios and details we donít want to bone up on, like Dingell-Norwood. He is the truly stupid one, for he has given George W. the opening to embody the contented America that his own administration helped to create, even as he has failed to weave all his endless policy details into an articulate message that might offer more than populist sloganeering as an alternative to donít-worry-be-happy. The vice-president hasnít even been able to make his criticism of his opponent coherent. ìI have actually not questioned Governor Busheís experience,î he lied to Jim Lehrer in his very first answer in the first debate...î

Mr. Bush, by contrast, has never backed away from his consistent critique of Mr. Gore--- ìHe seems guided by polls and focus groups that drain politics of its courage.î--- and the vice presidents inability to give a direct, unequivocal answer to almost any question put to him made the accusation stick. Frank Rich goes on to say that the courage of Mr. Bushís politics is not of greatest-generation caliber, but it befits his America. He calls it the courage to say and do nothing that might disturb the country during one of its longest running naps.

In contrast, Charles Krauthammer said that the last time we had an ìamiable dunceî for president (quote by Clark Clifford), he went on to (1) win the Cold War, and (2) launch the longest economic boom in American history. He points out that official Washington and the mainstream media find it hard not to condescend to successful conservative politicians who do not quite share its vast learning. The liberal wise men find none of their brilliance and erudition in the conservative pol. They fail to understand how a person can hold beliefs so contrary to theirs and still retain any mental acuity.

He remembers that Gerald Ford was considered thick. Eisenhower, whose syntax was so fractured it made George W. Bush sound like Clarence Darrow, was equally disdained by egghead Stevensonians. Even Franklin Roosevelt, before he became a liberal icon, was famously described by Oliver Wendell Holmes as a ìsecond-rate intellect, but a first-rate temperament.î Temperament matters. Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan, together with Harry Truman, were the greatest presidents of the century. And Truman, too, the only president of the century with no college education, was disdained for unbearable lightness when he first acceded to the presidency.

In a country with no inflation, no unemployment, record growth, a huge surplus and unparalleled dominance in the world, the incumbent party should win by 30 points. Given all these advantages, Gore might yet win. But Bush long ago covered the point spread. The race is already remarkable for its closeness. With the right united as it has not been since Reagan and the left fractured by Naderís Green insurgency, the gods have lined things up rather evenly. Gore has peace and prosperity. Bush has a congenial personality, a reformist agenda and ideological cohesion.

I differ slightly with Krauthammer, who predicts Bush 50, Gore 47, Nader 2. Bloom says Bush 49, Gore 46, Nader 5. I agree with Krauthammerís prediction of Bush by 10 electoral votes 274-264.

Dr Bloom is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University School of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and on the editorial board of the Wayne County Medical Society. He welcomes comments at his email address--- vbloom@comcast.net.