Picking a President: style or substance?

This isn't the first time American voters have faced such a choice. In 1980 the personalities and leadership styles of Carter and Reagan stood in stark contrast to each other. Carter was an incumbent known for his intelligence, showing a better grasp of policy than the officials responsible in his Administration. Reagan was gifted as a communicator, but left serious reservations about his intelligence. Like Bush, his campaign was hurt by gaffes such as calling the Vietnam War 'a noble cause', and expressing doubts about the theory of evolution. As Gore describes Bush now, Democrats then portrayed Reagan as a 'risky' candidate.

But important differences exist between the campaign today and that of 20 years ago. First Reagan was a better-qualified candidate than Bush. He served for 8 years as Governor of California, the largest state. In the 1950s Reagan was the President of the Screen Actors Guild, making him the only union leader to later serve as President, and Reagan made a name for himself, and did not ride the name of a famous father.

More importantly, under Carter the presidency and the country were seen to be in a time of crisis. Carter faced a fierce primary challenge from Senator Edward Kennedy, whereas Gore won every single primary in gaining the nomination. One of Reagan's appeals in 1980 was to ask "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?". Now the Vice President, as de facto incumbent, asks the same question to support an extension of the current administration.

In 1988 voters faced a different choice. Both candidates were intelligent, had strong records of public service, and yet lacked personal warmth. Dukakis held a convincing lead over Bush for a large part of the campaign. What clinched the presidency for Bush was a brutal campaign that pushed Dukakis to the left, portraying him as a soft-on-crime liberal. In 1992 voters chose Clinton, a rare candidate who combined personal warmth, academic intelligence, and a genuine interest in policy. That, in addition to a country in recession, was enough to topple the incumbent.

Let's hope that when forced to make the choice, the American voters look beyond the image. No amount of joking should disguise the fact that Bush has presided over the State with the highest number of executions; that his tax breaks are targeted to the wealthiest parts of society; that he would happily tear up the ABM Treaty with Russia. Even if they don't care about his not knowing every detail of policy and buy his hands-off approach, the voters should not hold him any less responsible.