If some voters had questions about the capacity of Gov. George W. Bush to understand America’s role in the world and act upon that understanding as president, they got an answer Wednesday night in his second debate with Vice President Al Gore.
That was a confident Bush on stage, confident in an extended discussion with Gore on foreign policy matters, capable of drawing a clear distinction between their views of the U.S. role in the world.
There is a difference in those views. These are two candidates who are internationalists, who recognize that the U.S. will not be able to shirk its responsibility as the most powerful nation on the planet. But Gore, it was clear from the debate, would be more quick to commit U.S. troops whether or not U.S. security interests are at stake and more willing to keep troops in an extended engagement. “Nation-building” was the catchword for debate two. Gore sees that as an appropriate, long-term mission for the U.S. military. Bush would not shirk from a deep U.S. role in promoting democratic institutions–but those won’t be U.S. soldiers on every street corner directing traffic until sundown.
So, two down, one debate to go. These debates may not yet have produced the kind of “You’re no John Kennedy” zinger that will make them memorable, but they have been extremely useful in sizing up two candidates. They have demonstrated that, yes, Al Gore, has a solid command of public policy, but they have also demonstrated that Bush knows of what he speaks.
They have also given a glimpse into one of the intangibles of political life, a public leader’s comfort level with who he is and how he presents himself. In two debates, Gore has shifted from attack dog to pussycat. Attack dog didn’t sell very well in debate one. Pussycat was almost bizarre to watch in debate two. Gore struggled to be kind and polite–it clearly was a struggle. Bush had to make no such Herculean effort to create a persona for public display. Yes, that says a great deal.
