University Times

Referring to the presidential candidates in both major parties as "charismatically challenged," a national syndicated columnist and CNN political commentator critiqued this year's national election.

Robert Novak, co-host of CNN's "Crossfire" program, spoke on the major issues in the presidential election as part of Pitt's American Experience distinguished lecture series. The series, presented by the University Honors College with support from the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, bi-annually invites national figures to the Pittsburgh campus for an address and question-and- answer session.

Cyril H. Wecht, Allegheny County coroner and former county commissioner, and Robert G. Hazo, American Experience program director, served as questioners following Novak's Oct. 4 lecture.

An avowed political conservative, Novak told the audience that "government, especially at the federal level, is the problem, not the solution." He said his favorite presidents of the 20th century were Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge, the only two who really believed in limited government.

"It's the power of the presidency that worries me," Novak said, "not the people we choose to serve," flawed though they may be. For example, he said, the U.S. makes military decisions based on national security. "Well, the national interest of the U.S. is whatever the president says it is. We use force on that principle. Congress is supposed to have sole power to declare war, but it's the president who has waged the last several wars."

Novak has covered the past 22 major party conventions over the course of 11 presidential races as a political journalist and commentator. He said common to every national election season is that, after the conventions, voters ask: Are these really the best two candidates? They also ask: What's the difference; aren't they just Tweedledee and Tweedle-dum?

"Those of you who came to hear me bash Al Gore are going to be bitterly disappointed. In fact, I worship the quicksand Al Gore is standing in," Novak quipped.

"I've known Al Gore since he was 12 years old. His father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., invited me over to dinner where they lived in Washington, at the Ritz Carlton Hotel. Well, I can tell you, very few populists make their home at the Ritz Carlton," Novak said, referring to the younger Gore's current political posture.

Novak joked that candidate Gore "studied 'Southern' as a foreign language," having grown up in Washington and having been schooled at Harvard.

On the national scene, Novak said, Gore's biggest mistake was running for president in 1988. "He waged one of the worst campaigns in history. He was considered finished. But in one of those funny things that happens in politics, Clinton picked him as vice president, saved his career, and essentially designated him heir, anointed the successor."

Novak said the vice president's road to the nomination this year was a foregone conclusion given the poor political strategy of his only real challenger, former Sen. Bill Bradley. "Famous ex-basketball player Bill Bradley, mixing up his sports, played 'rope-a-dope,' and let Gore continually punch him while he took it."

Novak said Republicans have a tradition of picking the candidate by "whose turn it is," disregarding qualifications and electibility. Candidates who were also-rans in prior years are moved up a notch. "They picked Reagan, because it was Reagan's turn; they picked [President] George Bush, because it was his turn. Bob Dole, I think is a great American. But a lousy candidate. They picked him. Why? It was Dole's turn."

And Gov. Bush? "Well, they didn't have anyone. So, they picked someone with the same name as someone who's turn it [used to be]. Republican leaders got together and plunked down $100 million and designated Bush as the candidate."

But, Novak maintained, the two candidates are nothing alike, personally or politically. "In fact, it's about as clear a choice as ever this year. I was pleasantly surprised by the [Oct. 3 presidential] debate. It was not exciting, but they were debating in a serious way, serious issues, including social security."

Novak said the one overriding issue in this campaign is what to do with the surplus, which is a new issue to recent political campaigns, given the chronic government deficits. "A surplus just means more money coming in than going out. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $550 trillion surplus over the next 10 years. What should be done with that money? Build new government programs or reduce taxes?"

Novak said Gore has proposed some tax cuts, but only for those who "need it," meaning people who qualify under specific government programs he favors, like those attending college or using daycare.

"He's correct when he says Bush wants to give about 40 percent of the tax cuts to 1 percent of the people. Why? They paid 40 percent of the taxes to begin with, that's why! Because it's fair."

Democrats traditionally pump money into federal programs under the mistaken belief that the government can fix whatever's wrong, Novak said. "Of course they call it 'investment,'" he said. "What Gore really wants is a redistribution of wealth.

"Bush says, give it back to the people, all of whom are overtaxed.

"The most productive in this society should get the most tax cut. The rich will invest. Others, the poor, the middle class, won't."

In fact, Novak proposed doing away with federal income taxes entirely in favor of a national sales tax. "We need to talk about tax reform, not just tax reduction. We need a different tax system, but nobody wants to talk about that."

A second clear-cut difference between the two candidates is their potential appointees to the Supreme Court. "Bush clearly would appoint judges to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade, though he won't say that. And Gore clearly has Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for the judges he would appoint. Would overturning Roe v. Wade mean the end of abortion? No, it would just be turned over to the states. New York, New Jersey would still have it. Would Pennsylvania? Well, we just don't know, do we?"

At least three justices will be appointed to the Supreme Court by the next president, Novak said. "The real danger is the overall role the court plays. The court was not meant to legislate; it was designed to adjudicate. The way things are now, Thomas Jefferson is revolving in his grave."

Democrats traditionally pick safe Supreme Court judges, Novak said. "The Republicans have no idea what they're doing [as evidenced by President] Bush's selection of David Souter, the most liberal judge on the bench."

The role of the military after the Cold War is an uncharted issue like having a surplus, and neither candidate is well-qualified to make decisions. "Bush doesn't know what to do, and Gore obfuscates on the issue," Novak said.

The lecturer also said that education is an overemphasized issue in the national campaign. "I keep a copy of the U.S. Constitution on my dresser for when I can't sleep. And the federal government has no duties toward education, not even in invisible ink; it's a state and local function," he said.

"Education really is a 'soft issue.' The only time it becomes important is when the economy is okay and there's no war, which is what we have now."

Novak said the issues he would like to see addressed, which so far have been ignored, include tax reform, racial quotas and school vouchers. "And I'd like to see term limits discussed, which has been surgically removed as an issue from the Republican platform, even though most Americans think it's a good idea."

Another theme common to every presidential election is hearing the candidates say, "This is the most important election of your lifetime."

"Well, it isn't," Novak said. "It's not important, except for the politicians. You're safe, no matter who wins. Even the losers are safe in this society. That's why there are no revolutions."

Novak maintained that the U.S. Constitution purposefully limits the power of the federal government. "Over 200 years ago at the other end of this state the founding fathers wrote the Constitution in a mood of detestation of government. They designed a system intended not to work. And they did a pretty good job of it, too! It's so hard to get anything passed. It's frustrating for both sides."

As an example, Novak said, it now takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass any legislation, practically speaking. "Forget the simple majority; the formerly little-used filibuster is now dragged out with such regularity that nothing can get passed without 60 votes."

Novak hedged about predicting the outcome of the election, but relented when pressed on the question.

He said if the election were held at the time of the lecture, Bush would win narrowly, the Democrats would re-capture a small majority in the House of Representatives and the Republicans would keep their small majority in the Senate.

Novak said about 90 percent of voters had already made up their minds and the race was a virtual dead heat. "But what are the other 10 percent looking at? Do you think it's the surplus? Is it social security? Education? No, they're looking at it like a job interview, a beauty contest, I'm sad to say."

–Peter Hart