Gore and Bush: One of the Differences

Fourth Quarter 2000

Editor's Watch

by James W. Skillen

There are differences between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore. They are indebted to different interest groups: Gore to teachers unions, prosecuting attorneys, and Hollywood; Bush to oil and insurance companies and the gun lobby. Bush is mildly opposed to abortion; Gore is strongly in favor.

The two candidates are also very close to the center of American politics. The secure votes that each one is counting on do not add up to a majority on either side, and the right- and left-wing fringes are not large enough to make the difference. Consequently, both are fighting for the undecided middle, the independents, the 5-10 percent of likely voters that will decide the outcome.

Despite their centrism on so many issues, with both believing that government is chiefly a means to other ends, there is one difference that comes through in most of what each one advocates. The difference is subtle and becomes clear only against the backdrop of what they both hold in common. Gore thinks from inside government out; Bush thinks from outside government in. Gore wants to show all the things that government can do to promote what lies beyond it; Bush wants to emphasize the important things outside government that should either be left untouched or supported by government. Bush wants government to support faith-based social services because they are where the real action is. Gore supports faith-based social services because government ought to help the poor, and faith-based organizations appear to be one means toward that end.

What Gore tends to overlook or under-emphasize is the importance of the distinguishable responsibilities that each nongovernmental institution and organization (such as churches, families, businesses, and non-profit agencies) has. He sees people chiefly in their role as citizens and by way of their common interest in what government ought to do and has to offer. For this reason he has a real interest in the political community of which all citizens are a part. The danger of his approach is that he will fail to do justice to what is nongovernmental and will let the political community itself be defined by the interest groups that most want to use it to define the public square to suit themselves.

Bush tends to overlook or under-emphasize the importance of the political community and government's task within it. He sees people chiefly through their nongovernmental interests and responsibilities. For this reason he has a real interest in what people can and want to do for themselves and wants to make sure that government does not get in their way. The danger of his approach is that he will fail to do justice to what is governmental and internal to the community of citizens. He may let government's self-restraint and benefits become more useful to those who can help themselves than to those who cannot.

In my view, there is more to life than political community, and government cannot do good without giving due respect and protection to that which is not governmental. At the same time, there is more to public life than that which lies outside government's responsibility. There is a political community, and it ought to be a community of justice.