 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Letters The difference between Bush and Dukakis
Editor. Charles N. Wheeler III let his frustration get in the way of consistently sound judgment in his October column, "Bush and Dukakis campaigns: entertainment over substance." In fact the 1988 presidential campaign has produced an enormous amount of information about the two main candidates, and the fact that the people seem to favor Mr. Bush over Mr. Dukakis shouldn't be interpreted as a failure on the part of the candidates to discuss the issues. Implicit in Mr. Wheeler's analysis is the belief that if the voters really understood Mr. Dukakis' message, they'd prefer it to Mr. Bush's; the fact that voters prefer Mr. Bush, therefore, means the candidates haven't sufficiently discussed the issues. But of course they have. They've discussed them in countless personal appearances, nationally televised debates, white papers and spontaneous one-on-one interviews and press conferences. The messages have been spread, and they clearly delineate a difference between the two men on such crucial issues as the economy, national defense, foreign affairs, family issues and national values. Like so many of my brethren in the media, Mr. Wheeler doesn't like the message from Mr. Bush and can't comprehend anyone embracing it, or worse, preferring it to Mr. Dukakis' message. The messages got out. They were heard and evaluated. And, by the time this letter sees print, the people will have decided. All fair and square. Associate Publisher/Editor Crain's Chicago Business In response: Mr. Miller suggests that those who are critical of the 1988 presidential campaign's tenor are disappointed Dukakis supporters who can't accept that voters might prefer Bush's position on the key issues facing our nation. That hypothesis, however, is not supported by the evidence; indeed, if any aspect of the 1988 presidential election approached national consensus, it was a belief that both candidates ran shallow, superficial, negative campaigns. The Chicago Tribune, for example, endorsed Bush but said in an editorial that whoever won would have to be hosed down so he would not leave too many stains in the Oval Office, while George Will, hardly an "l-word," termed the candidates' performance in their first debate "a national embarrassment." Moreover, public opinion polls showed that rank-and-file voters concurred in the appraisal. A Newsweek survey, for example, favored Bush, 51-42, but found 64 percent of voters believed the campaign was more negative than past ones and 60 percent agreed the candidates were not discussing issues of importance to them. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, which favored Bush 51-42, found that a majority of likely voters believed each candidate was running a negative campaign, more than 60 percent wished for different candidates, and, as for embracing the Bush message, only 21 percent believed one of the vice president's central themes — his pledge not to raise taxes. Charles N. Wheeler III Poetry and politics Editor: Loved the poem, "13 ways of looking at a painting," by S.L. Wisenberg in the October magazine. Keep up the good work. Who says poetry and politics don't mix? Springfield Readers: Your comments on articles and columns are welcome. Please keep letters brief (250 words); we reserve the right to excerpt them so as many as space allows can be published. Send your letters to: Illinois Issues Sangamon State University Springfield, Illinois 62794-9243 December 1988 | Illinois Issues | 9 |
|
|