Coming on the heels of what happened in 1992, the cultivation of the sense throughout the
fall that the election was over would not have been possible. The polling surveys would
have been quite different, even given their skewed bases. The early returns on election
night would neither have been of the character to lead millions more not to vote in the
west. Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico,
and probably Washington, Oregon, Missouri, and even California, would have put Bob
Dole in the White House. Even the incessant beat meted out concerning his age and
handicap could not have been successful. This in particular is a badge of dishonorable
conduct which should mark the Democrats and the media with a stigma for many years to
come. The alternative psychology prevalent would have resulted in a much altered impact
of the rant about Republican 'meanness' (apparently so successful in places like Michigan),
which would have played to a deaf ear. The pollster geist would have been exorcised.
Dole would have picked up undecided voters breaking to commitment in the final days in
numbers adequate to carry the day.
Whereas Ronald Reagan won two 'different' elections, Clinton was able to come out on
top in two elections for much the same reason -- Ross Perot. In net, it was neither the
'economy, stupid' in 1992, nor was it the economy or anything else in 1996. Had there
been no Perot effect, he could have won neither. In addition to this, had the media not
played the contests with the bias they did, even that might have been insufficient. That
does not diminish Reagan or his accomplishments, electoral or policy, at all. It does
portray the dynamics of the electoral process in both of those years. Having been utterly
unable to stop Reagan, the liberal absolutists have embarked on a course of guerrilla war
and political terrorism in order to clear their path.
There is a clear problem with the various schema which have been articulated regarding
the prediction of outcomes of the presidential race, such as the so-called thirteen keys to
the Presidency (Lichtman 1996, APQ 1996). Because of the kinds of factors sighted here,
they are quite inadequate. That they are held to be more reliable because of their 'success'
in predicting the outcome of the 1992 and 1996 races does not change the fact that they
were only correct in their inadequate bases which fail to explain the results in terms which
can account for such things as the media and pollstergeist effects and the Perot effect.
The problems poised in the wings to potentially trouble Bill Clinton may combine with
those of divided government and shaky economic conditions to render him largely
impotent as President in either a full or an aborted second term. In spite of media
intransigence to recognition of the level of impropriety, the administration will be forced
to proceed along a path of merely waiting for the other shoe to drop, even if, on their bias,
it never actually does. Having built a house of cards on the Big Lie, they have failed in
their attempt at a more sophisticated 'burning' of the Reichstag -- for the moment. At the
same time, the pursuit of their ambitious agenda of continued collectivization of America,
while it will continue to be imposed by stealth to whatever extent they can effect that (as
through executive orders), will, unlike the trains in Mussolini's Italy, not run on schedule.
Once again, the electoral process in the United States has been subverted. We cannot
change the results of the 1992 or 1996 elections or their impact on the country. But
reducing electoral results to a numbers game devoid of any connection to the dynamics of
the politics involved is folly. It is also dangerous for those who would base their political
fortunes on such short-sighted rationalization. Bill Clinton won two presidential elections,
but he won both of them in votes against him by the majority of the electorate.The
Democrat victory did not occur because they picked up so many votes; it is simply that
Republicans fell to their lowest votes since 1952 (except for 1964) in narrowly losing.
Realization of what has been propagated, however, should alarm us and awaken us to
come to grips with the situation. But the wake-up call will not come from a mainstream
media (or a political science) locked under the tyranny of a liberal absolutism which thrives
on keeping the electorate (and often itself -- in self delusion) in the dark. It may, indeed,
be a long time in coming. Our republic is under assault. There is a real danger that it may
end, not with a bang, but a whimper. There is, indeed, a spectre haunting America -- and
one which may yet bring an iron curtain descending down upon us.
