Donald J. Devine

Debate dynamics . . . and demerits
October 5, 2000

With the overnight CNN poll showing the presidential debate a draw, what is George W. Bush to do? He acquitted himself well on his signature issues of education, Social Security, health care and the rest but it is clear he is fighting on Al Gore's turf.

It is all counterpunching. The current poll by ABC and The Washington Post shows the results: Mr. Gore is up 50 to 39 percent on the education issue and 45 to 36 percent on health care. Ring lore is that a challenger cannot win a prize fight without offense. The poll even shows Mr. Bush behind in keeping down the cost of gasoline, when his opponent helps set the government's current energy policy.

Counting on issues such as education, prescription drugs for the elderly, welfare for the needy, universal health care and even Social Security, no matter how good, cannot escape the traditional Republican dilemma. Mr. Bush cannot outspend the Democrats and he comes out looking cheap. Even on tax cuts, Mr. Gore was constantly on the attack that cuts will go to the rich" and the two are tied on the issue in the polls. Fighting on taxes is his best issue but Gov. Bush's big tax plan is too complicated for the average voter. What Mr. Bush needs is a simple tax cut that would go to everyone.

The high price of gasoline, the anti-fuel tax demonstrations in Europe and the "blame big oil" response of Al Gore have created an incredible opportunity. The cost of gas is a simple issue voters can easily grasp. It is as simple and as winning as Gov. James Gilmore's attack on the car tax in Virginia. Everyone pays it and no one likes it. Mr. Bush's response in the debate was too abstract. In fact, Al Gore proposed a 12 cents a gallon BTU tax on all fossil fuels in 1993 and when Congress killed that he cast the tie-breaking Senate vote for a 4.3 cent a gallon gas tax increase. His famous book called the internal-combustion engine "the single greatest threat to our civilization" — and he reiterated his support for its ideas in its new introduction. How can one lose critical Michigan against a person who wants to starve the auto industry? Targets Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania have big energy components too. This should be a slam dunk.

The reason for Republican caution is the perceived liberalization of the electorate on economic issues. But even if there has been a public turn left, it is not so far left as to abandon the American love of the automobile. If even the socialist-saturated voters of Europe get it, it should be an easy sell here. Liberals there played the same "blame it on big oil" game as Al Gore. But an aggressive response turned the censure back on government regulation and high taxes. Taxes on energy are not as high here but that is not because Mr. Gore has not tried. Not only has he proposed European-like high gas taxes to cut energy consumption but he was the chief voice for an energy tax within the Clinton administration. His support for the Kyoto Protocol's extreme carbon dioxide emissions reduction would put everyone on bicycles. This is not a cheap shot but aims at the center of what Al Gore believes.

The case is easy to make but it will take courage. The Wall Street Journal dug up a Bush statement expressing concern about his father's policy of "cheap energy." It is easy for him to defend this and he must, and then talk about nothing but cutting the gas tax for the rest of the campaign. For a long time, the Texas governor could afford a cautious strategy. Mr. Bush broke all records for a Republican until the vice president's convention, for the first time receiving more favorable media coverage than the Democrat. Now reality has returned. The Center for Media and Public Affairs has just documented what is obvious to all: In September, Mr. Gore received 55 percent favorable media coverage to Mr. Bush's 35 percent. The race is close but a determined attack on Mr. Gore's philosophy of taxing gasoline so people will not drive autos could blow it open.

It is not that Al Gore has "no energy policy." He has an energy policy and it is to cut consumption of carbon-based energy fuels. The way to do that is to tax it — right up to the 80 percent level of some of the Europeans. George Bush can win that debate in the critical rust belt states even if he is not the smoother talker. But he must have a simple tax policy people can comprehend, and then sell it. Just ask Jim Gilmore.

Al Gore was desperate. Before polls began flowing his way, the usual oracles decreed that he needed to solidify his liberal base. So he went for one of the kookiest proposals of the loony left, "comparable worth." This is the doctrine that the government can determine which jobs are of comparable worth to all others and can decide how to pay everyone equally for equal work.

These poor liberals just cannot help themselves. The early polls showed Vice President Al Gore did not have enough support from women. Women believe they are not paid enough (as if men do). But statistics show women only make 76 percent of what men earn and the AFL-CIO found women put equal pay as more important even than health care. Naturally, Al Gore concluded the solution was a government program to set everyone salary and that campaigning for "equal pay" for women would be good politics.

Of course, Gore & Co. do not utter the words "comparable worth." Indeed, they quietly whisper to friendly reporters who ask what business thinks, that they oppose Sen. Tom Harkin's "Fair Pay Act" that would directly impose comparable worth. Mr. Gore "only" supports Minority Leader Tom Daschle's bill using "voluntary guidelines." But the bill directs the labor secretary to develop "guidelines" for job categories to be used "voluntarily" by all employers to compare wages for different jobs as a means to eliminate "unfair wage disparities." The hook is that businesses sued for being unfair would be subject to massive punitive damages. In fact, when courts try to enforce laws, they look to whatever is there. If there are guidelines, they will be enforced. Quotas and job preferences were imposed in this exact way, with courts imposing "guidelines" — the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures — as law.

None of this is new. Equal pay for women for equal work has been the law since 1963. It is true that since Congress toughened the penalties, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has forced more settlements upon business. But that is only because they calculate settlement is cheeper than bureaucratic harassment or punitive damages.

No data show widespread wage discrimination. Liberals tried to impose comparable worth in the 1980s, first for everyone and then only for the federal government as an easier target. This is how yours truly became an expert on this madness. One could marshall the scores of studies — several were done by former Congressional Budget Office head June O'Neill, and a new one was just released by the Employment Policies Institute by Barry Hirsch — showing that when one controls for number of hours worked, the number of years of experience and education in a given occupation, there is no gender gap at all. But no one cared. Even between occupations, the gap almost disappears — or shows an advantage to women if the value of choosing preferred types of work is counted. Nothing, however, dissuades the pay police of the left.

Pray tell, how is someone to determine how "comparable" is the work of nurses and carpenters? It would take a Solomon or rather —since he would wisely decline — a fool, probably many fools, working for the government with computers and piles of statistics that signify nothing except political correctness. Every existing method is arbitrary. The very reason the government was chosen was that it was outside the market and cannot go out of business even with arbitrariness. When the unions tried this before they were restrained by the blue collar unions who knew they would be paid less under any such scheme. The decline in these male-oriented industries now makes it easier for the unions to sell them out.

Mr. Gore has thrown every liberal nostrum he can think of into his campaign. He has promised to cure cancer, diabetes, AIDS and crime, specifically to cut the crime rate every year for a decade. Now he will set the salary for every job at just the right rate. How nice. All that is needed is a bit of government. Hey, pal, this has been tried before. Where has this man been?

The United States — or at least the Democratic Party and its constituencies — may be the last to find out what is happening in the world. Socialism has fallen everywhere, and Al Gore wants to set everyone's salary. If Americans were not willing to swallow government-run health care, how would they trust the Feds enough to regulate what every citizens is to be paid? If he can sell this, he will exceed V.I. Lenin in the pantheon of those who believe in government and its plan to kiss everyone's booboos and make everything all right.