The Presidential Election Of 2000 Essay Research
The Presidential Election Of 2000 Essay, Research Paper
The Presidential election of 2000 was one of the most controversial and dissentious political events in recent history, absolutely exemplifying the split between the two political parties and the about uncannily equality of these groups. However, this election besides showed the state that although many issues maintain these two parties in two distinguishable cantonments, an equal figure of issues drew really similar responses from the Republican campaigner, George W. Bush, and the Democratic campaigner, Al Gore. Truly, the past few old ages have seen a gravity on the parts of both parties towards a in-between land that has frustrated utmost conservativists and progressives ; two minor campaigners, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchannan, illustrated this conformance by their commands in this election on, severally, more broad and more conservative platforms. Nader & # 8217 ; s claims of two indistinguishable major party campaigners were exagerrated: the two work forces did hold greatly changing point of views on such issues as wellness attention, abortion, revenue enhancement reform, instruction, and the environment.
Only $13.90 / page
However, other issues, such as run finance reform, gun control, the war on drugs, and foreign policy, have drawn unusually similar stances from the two work forces.
The issue of revenue enhancements became cardinal to the 2000 election when Republican campaigner George W. Bush promised to utilize a tierce of the current excess to ordain a significant revenue enhancement cut. This $ 1.6 trillion dollar amount would let a revenue enhancement cut in each income bracket, an addition in child revenue enhancement credits and credits for married twosomes, and a abrogation of the estate revenue enhancement. Gore wanted to cut down this $ 1.6 trillion dollar amount to $ 480 million and restrict the revenue enhancement cuts to those he feels need them most, the revenue enhancement remunerators in the lower brackets. He besides wanted to make credits for college tuition, preschool, attention for an aged parent, the purchase of a fuel-efficient auto, and retirement-savings histories, all credits designed to give revenue enhancement interruptions to those who need them ( Frank 72 ) .
The differences in the two campaigners & # 8217 ; positions on abortion will chiefly act upon the assignment of new supreme tribunal justnesss. Several justnesss are looking towards retirement within the following four old ages. Bush would name justnesss such as Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, while Gore would name justnesss such as Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. These justnesss would besides hold an consequence on verifiers for spiritual schools and affirmatory action. Bush would back up censoring partial abortions, but, while Gore claims he does non back up these abortions, he would oppose censoring them. Another important difference refering abortion concerns the abortion pill known as RU-486. This pill is taken orally after construct and kills the foetus as in a physician assisted abortion. Bush opposes legalising this pill, while Gore supports it ( Frank 72 ) .
Bush and Gore differ refering wellness attention in their methods of guaranting that all households are medically insured. Bush wants to give a $ 2,000 revenue enhancement recognition to uninsured households in order to promote the purchase of insurance. Gore would wish to trust on the Children & # 8217 ; s Health Insurance Program to let low- and middle-income kids & # 8217 ; s parents to purchase subsidised insurance. Both campaigners would wish to give patients the right to action HMOs, but Bush would wish this right to be much more restricted than Gore would. Gore wants to continue Medicare by forcing $ 435 billion dollars into the & # 8220 ; lockbox & # 8221 ; , while Bush would turn Medicare into more of an insurance based operation than societal security based, leting the money to be used for insurance and prescription drugs ( Frank 72 ) .
Another major bone of contention between the two campaigners involves environmental concerns. Bush and Gore disagree on where the demands of the state outweigh the demands of the Earth. A focal point of these environmental concerns has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Bush would wish to bore in this modesty in order to increase the United States & # 8217 ; crude oil militias and cut down the monetary values of gasolene. However, Gore would wish to maintain this modesty pure as it contains several endangered species and is a alone preserved natural environment. Bush is besides an opposition of the Clean Air and Water Acts, favored undertakings of Gore, because he feels they limit the autonomous powers of single provinces ( Globe A28 ) .
These issues illustrate that there are surely differences between the parties. However, there are many issues that, when presented to the campaigners, made clear the fact that both campaigners were scrambling towards a in-between land that would be appealing to more electors.
Campaign finance reform is a sore topic for many in Washington, particularly those who feel that the state is run by particular involvement groups who donate important amoun
T of money to presidential campaigners, anticipating political favours in return. Both Bush and Gore are no alien to hefty contributions, and have been known to do determinations while believing towards their parties’ piggy Bankss. Neither campaigner is really likely to be a innovator in the restriction of contributions. Both want to censor soft money, both are loath to wholly fade out the concatenation of money that keeps their parties’ political runs traveling in the involvement of just drama ( Presidential Argument ) . This similarity in the two campaigners was amplified by the presence of Senator John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain’s steadfast lobbying for stricter regulations for run contributions stressed that the two major party campaigners are all excessively unwilling to give up support.
Gun control is another issue that traditionally was the beginning of fierce contention between Republicans and Democrats, but this twelvemonth found itself centralized by the demand for swing ballots. Both want to concentrate on leting huntsmans and sportswomans to maintain their guns, but want to maintain these arms out of the incorrect custodies. Both besides want to censor automatic arms and high-capacity ammo cartridge holders. There are elusive differences in the two work forces? s policies. Bush wants to protect gun makers from cases, while Gore does non. The similarities and disparities between the two work forces? s policies can be seen in these replies during the October 17, 2000, argument in St. Louis.
Q: Do you back up the Brady Bill?
Shrubs: Law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect their households. We ought to maintain guns out of the custodies of people who shouldn? Ts have them. That? s why I? m for instant background cheques at gun shows. I? m for trigger locks. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can hold a gun. I besides believe that the best manner to do certain that we maintain our society safe is to keep people accountable for interrupting the jurisprudence. If we catch person illicitly selling a gun, there needs to be a effect. The federal authorities can assist.
Gore: All my proposals are focused on that job: gun safety. None of my proposals would hold any consequence on huntsmans or sportswomans or people who use rifles. They? rhenium aimed at the existent job. Let? s have a three-day waiting period, A chilling off, so we can hold a background cheque to do certain that felons and people who truly shouldn? Ts have guns Dons? T acquire them.
Both work forces besides have a similar place on the war on drugs. Predictably, they differ on the success of the Clinton-Gore war on drugs: Gore says that every bit long as disbursement was maintained, the drug war was successful ; Bush says that their policy was inconsistent and therefore doomed to neglect. Both feel that stronger Torahs are the reply, experiencing that their preventative attack is working.
Both campaigners are similar in the interventionist action they are willing to take. In the presidential argument at Wake Forest on October 11, 2000, both work forces were unusually similar in their support of some of the interventionist actions of the past 20 old ages. They merely differed on two counts: Bush felt that action in Lebanon was necessary, and Gore did non, while the contrary was true for action in Haiti. Refering Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and Kosovo, both felt that military intercession was necessary. Merely when speech production of intercession in Somalia did both campaigners feel that military adjutant was unneeded and even harmful. This understanding of the two campaigners is non much of a surprise, since in 1990 and 1991, Gore was one of the few senators to openly support Desert Shield and Desert Storm. This has led to defeat among electors who favor a more isolationist point of view.
These similarities in the two campaigners led to an interesting election twelvemonth full of recounts and contention. In the primaries, two strong rivals in the signifiers of John McCain and Bill Bradley made a much stronger demoing than smugglers up frequently do in these primaries. Two 3rd party campaigners, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan, picked up electors that were disillusioned by this gravity towards the center. However, claims that this was basically a one party race were slightly overdone. The campaigners took differing point of views on several cardinal issues. That kept them from looking, as Ralph Nader put it, like? Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum. ? All of these factors contributed to one of the most politically interesting elections in the history of the United States.
Frank, Mitch, and Andrew Goldstein. ? The Four Big Differences. ? Time. Nov. 6, 2000: 72.
Presidential Debate, Boston MA October 3, 2000.
Presidential Debate, Winston-Salem NC October 11, 2000.
Presidential Argument, St. Louis MO October 17, 2000.
? The Issues. ? The Boston Globe. Nov. 3, 2000: A28.