For months leading up to the 5 November presidential election, Bill Clinton has managed to hold a wide lead over Republican candidate Bob Dole, averaging between 20 to 25 points ahead in most polls. Moreover, Clinton's approval rating shot up to 61 percent by the end of September, his highest popularity ever.
Clinton brags that the US economy is `the healthiest it's been in three decades', and opinion polls show that most voters credit him for the improved economy.
Media pundits have interpreted Clinton's standing in the polls as a blanket endorsement of his shift to the right. There is a new hopeful mood sweeping across America, they say, which contrasts sharply with the voter anger that elected Clinton four years ago as a candidate of change, after 12 long years of Reaganism. As news commentator Clarence Page put it, `Voters want change, but when the economy is going good (as it is now), they don't want too much change In other words, they want a New Democrat-turned-neo-Republican.'
Business Week gloated in mid-September, `It doesn't get any better than this: first half growth at 3.4 percent, the jobless rate at close to a two decade low, and the Dow headed toward 5,900. Hey, let's party.' Since then, the Dow has topped 6,000. And new economic data also seems to back up this cheery view, showing that after six years of recovery, unemployment has fallen to 5.2 percent, and household income increased more last year than in a decade.
According to the new statistics even the percentage of blacks living in poverty fell to 29.3 percent the lowest level since l959.
But you only need to scratch the surface to see how superficial this analysis is. In reality, the living standards and working conditions of most workers especially the poorest are getting worse. Most workers (at least those who bother to vote) will vote for Clinton only because they fear what a Republican victory might bring, not because they place any real hope in Clinton.
As liberal columnist Molly Ivins described the campaign, `So this is it? A contentless, vacuous campaign dominated by vigorous discussion of school uniforms and teen smoking? I'm waiting for President Clinton to smash a guitar onstage to get our attention.'
There is very little for the candidates to debate, for the simple reason that they agree on most basic issues. Both are for slashing social spending, while padding the military budget. Both are for throwing women and children off welfare, for expanding the death penalty and cutting immigration. And neither are for discussing the real issues affecting workers' lives: low wages, lack of healthcare and bad working conditions. That is the reason why most workers just tune out of the election. A survey by the Pew Research Centre showed 73 percent of respondents have found the election campaign `dull'. The candidates have left such little impression that four in ten people cannot name Bob Dole's running mate (who is don't tell me Jack Kemp). Even the Economist magazine called Clinton's running mate, Al Gore, `dull beyond belief'.
Instead of debating the real issues which concern people, Dole has made the promise of a 15 percent tax cut the centrepiece of his campaign a promise which most people know he has no intention of keeping. Clinton, on the other hand, seeks out every photo opportunity to appear surrounded by police, to show he's tough on crime while he brags about enacting `60 new death penalties'.
Moreover, most people do not share a glowing view of the economy at least not so far as their own lives are concerned. According to a Washington Post survey published last month, the average person believes that the current unemployment rate is four times higher than it actually is, and one in four believes it is higher than 25 percent. Seven in ten people say there are fewer jobs than there were five years ago. Just one in four expects the standard of living for the average American to rise in the next five years. And the average person estimated corporate profits at 47 percent five times the actual figure. A separate survey published in the Nation last month showed a staggering 83 percent agree (almost 60 percent agree strongly) that `average working families have less economic security today, because corporations have become too greedy and care more about their profits than about being fair and loyal to their employees.'
The rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to suffer. According to Forbes magazine, the number of US billionaires has risen to 21, an increase of 30 percent over a year ago. Last month General Motors reported its third quarter earnings were almost double those of a year ago, as were those of Caterpillar, the tractor manufacturer which broke a 17 month strike last year.
Even if the level of inequality declined slightly last year, it still stands at levels not seen since the Great Depression. Wages and earnings rose slightly last year, but that gain was offset by a decline in fringe benefits like healthcare. Unemployment has declined overall, yet unemployment rates for black men and for Latinos has risen steadily during the recovery, and are now back to over 10 percent. Child poverty fell faster last year than in any year since the 1970s, yet it still stands at a staggering 20 percent.
And this does not even begin to take into account the effects of the new legislation attacking welfare and immigrants which Clinton has recently signed into law. No one yet knows how many immigrants will starve now that they are no longer entitled to food stamps, or how many will die from illnesses because they are being shut out of nursing homes unless they are independently wealthy. No one yet knows how many millions of children will go hungry now that Clinton has ended the right to welfare, or how much the infant mortality rate will rise in inner cities. Already, low birthweight is the number one cause of death for black infants under the age of one year that is because their mothers didn't get enough to eat when they were pregnant.
As economist Lester Thurow argued about falling wages, `This issue, and what to do about it, ought to be the central issue of the l996 presidential campaign. But it hasn't been. The president is already running from the issue.' Even if Clinton wins by a landslide, there will be no honeymoon this time around only growing bitterness.