Elections
Lamar Alexander positioned as the moderate alternative
by Gregory Ellis
Former Tennessee governor and Bush Administration Education Secretary Lamar Alexander envisioned a presidential campaign as simple as his slogan "ABC: Alexander Beats Clinton." Position-ing himself as a moderate Republican alternative to Bob Dole, he finished a strong third in both Iowa and New Hamp-shire.
However, last week he
finished fourth in all three prima-ries (North Dakota, South Dakota and
Arizona) and is currently the fourth man in a four-man race. This week's
primaries should test the validity of his candidacy. It may well be that
his "moderate" persona is hurting him in a primary campaign that plays to
party loyalists; ironically, his platform, if enacted, would lead to the
most radical shift in federal power since the New Deal. This is because the key
theme of the Alexander campaign is an all-out attack on what he calls the
"arrogant empire" of the federal government. Arguing that local
institutions best know how to handle local problems, he advocates shifting
large portions of the federal government to states, neighborhoods and
private institutions such as churches and charities. As president,
Alexander would begin this shift by abolishing the Department of Education
and turning federal education funding into "block grants" distributed to
the states. After this, Alexander would move all federal welfare programs
to the states and end federal regulations against religious groups helping
to administer such programs. Finally, he would shift all federal job
training programs and (eventually) Medicaid funding to the states. Overall,
Alexander cites a figure of $200 billion in federal programs he wants to
move out of Washington.In addition to moving
federal programs out of Washington, Alexander would like Congress to spend
less time in the capital. He has pledged to fight for Congressional term
limits, and he wants Congress to stay in session only six months out of the
year, spending the other six months in home districts.Economic issues don't play
a large role in Alexander's campaign; this may be another reason his
campaign is experiencing difficulties. He has advocated a capital gains tax
cut on several occasions, though, and has stressed his record in Tennessee,
where he lured Saturn and Nissan to build huge new auto plants. He has also
admitted that states may have to raise taxes to handle their new
responsibilities, just as he had to do in Tennessee in order to build 100
miles of interstate highways without federal help. Such a statement
obviously hasn't endeared the former governor to Republican anti-tax
advocates.Alexander is a strong
advocate of social causes. He has stated that "race-based scholarships were
wrong" and is obviously opposed to affirmative action. His abortion stance
follows from his power-to-the states approach. Alexander would let the
states--rather than the federal government--regulate abortion, but would
not allow the states to outlaw it due to the Roe v. Wade decision.
Finally, as president, Alexander would use his office as a bully pulpit to
address major societal problems, most notably the importance of community
involvement and the decline of the family, church, neighborhood and
school--institutions he says give Ameri-cans "an almost irrational belief
in our own future" that is the key to success. This moral orientation has
earned Alexander the endorsement of value guru William Bennett, author of
"The Book of Virtues" and, like Alexander, a former Education
secretary.Clearly, a Lamar Alexander
presidency would lead to changes in the structure of government not seen
since the FDR administration. The presidency itself would shift from what
Alexander describes as the "chief legislator" to the nation's chief moral
spokesman, attacking cultural problems and advocating virtue. Congressmen
would have their pay cut, their terms limited and their time in Washington
reduced in order to spend more time with their constituents. Of course,
there would be considerably less for Congress to do, as the federal
government would have huge sections of it sent to the states to
control.Such a massive shift in
power from the federal to the state level is faced with some possibly fatal
pitfalls. First, it is possible that more well-off states could offer
better welfare and Medicaid benefits, thus becoming "welfare magnets."
There is also a question as to whether or not states would follow through
on their new responsibilities. Alexander himself doesn't have a problem
with activist state governments; he was in many respects an activist
governor in Tennessee, raising taxes to fund educational reforms and
highway building. However, the current small-government trend is at least
as pronounced in the nation's statehouses as in Washington, D.C., and it is
entirely possible that shrinking state governments would not want the
responsibility of administering programs that were the province of the
federal government for the last six decades.Lamar Alexander's platform
is much more consistent ideologically than those of most presidential
candidates, but that is not enough to ensure success. It remains to be seen
whether or not the public is ready for such a drastic restructuring of the
federal government, or if Alexander can ever mesh his moderate image with
his sweeping agenda. If public responsiveness remains low, or if he cannot
fit his persona to his platform, Alexander may finish reciting his campaign
ABCs long before the November election.Gregory Ellis is a senior majoring in political science.