that over 70 percent of American otersrnbelicc that the “economy is in goodrnshape” and the “conntrv is on the rightrntrack.” More importantl, the publicrncredits the Chnton-Gorc administrahonrnfor the “booming economy.” Bnsh’s advisorsrnmistakenly assume that the nation’srndisgust with Clinton’s sordid sexual behaviorrnand the need to “restore moral integritv”rnto the Wliite f^ousc is enough tornconvince voters to opt for change. Yet e-rnervone knows that, for all of his tlaws,rnGore will not be having sex in the 0alrnOffice: Tipper would not stand for it.rnHence, Core offers the electorate the formularnit craves: the continuation of Clinton’srnpolicies minus the “bimbo eruptions.”rnNo wonder the Bush campaign isrnfloundering.rnWhich makes the decision b’ conservativesrnto support Bush particularK’ perverse.rnThey are deliberately ignoring hisrnred toryism, his lack of intellectual substance,rnand his cocaine-snorting andrnwomanizing past. By jumping on Bush’srnbandwagon with both feet, Beltwa- conservativesrnhave revealed their real commihucntsrn—careerism and opportunism.rnIs this all that is left of the parh of Taft,rnGoldwater, and Reagan?rn—Jeffrey ThomaH KuhnerrnA L G O R E , should he win tire Oval Officernin November, will owe his victor) tornthe triunrph of what G.K. Chestertonrncalled “niaseulinism” — actualh thernpseudo-mascidinism of tire “suffragettes”rnwho hae transformed elections into popularih’rncontests. Without the irse of pollsrnand across the ocean, Chesterton foresawrnthis phenomenon 91 vears ago in his essayrn” I h c Modern Surrender of Women.”rnfits prediction was simple and (evenrnthen) controversial: If women w ere givenrnthe vote, democratic polities would degenerate,rnproducing a media-manipulatedrntyrannv, as women became the victinrsrnof “male exaggeration.” B oting,rnwomen would gradualh be stripped ofrntheir fcmininit-, while men, b shillingrnfor their otes, would cease to be men.rnBy “masculinism,” Chesterton meantrntwo things: man’s desire to coerce othersrnand his need to fraternize with other menrnand argue. These actions are tire fundamentalrnconrponents of democracy. Votingrn”is onlv tiie shadow” of “tiie men ofrnthe village shouting at each other at ThernBlue Pig.”rnInevitably, The Blue Pig is full ofrnhot air —”outrageous pomposities ofrnspeech.” But real men understood tiiatrnthis barroom ritual —call it “politics” —isrna Inpcrbolic “art, which we knew was notrnthe whole ot life.” Onl a naie buffoonrnwould take politics too seriouslv. We canrnstill see this in Britain’s House of Commons.rnImagine the “right honorable gentieinan”rnBill Clinton on Questions for thernPrime Minister, tring to sell his “Bridgernto tiie 21st Ceiitim-.” Tlie guffaws wouldrnbe heard from tire Thames all the wav tornLands I*’,iid.rnChesterton’s piercing ee could seernthe new Blue Pig of tiie 21st centur-, althoughrnhe did not know its name: thernOprah Winfrey’ Sho^\ There was Al Gorernon tiie ottoman opposite Oprah, musingrnabout his faorite book, his loc for BobrnDlan, the Beatles, and Tipper—whichrnineitabK’ led to talk of ” l l ic Kiss.” Oprahrnlobbed him an eas” one: “Were on tn-iiigrnto scud a message by passionateh’ kissingrnvour wife on national teleisioii?” Gorernresponded, “I was tn,ing to send Tipper arnmessage.” The crowd swooned.rn”The immediate effect of tiic femalernsuffrage movement,” said Chesterton,rn”will be to make politics much too important;rnto exaggerate tiiem all out of proportionrnto tiie rest of life.” Our masculinizedrnwomen and feminized men riskrnmore emotional capital on the nationalrnelection tiian tiiey do in the areas of lifernthat reall}’ matter: home, church, school.rnThe soccer moms who watch Oprah’srnshow are the demographic tiiat will likelyrndecide who becomes president because,rnas Chesterton predicted, tlie liae surrenderedrn”that throne of satire, realismrnand detachment from which |tlie | sornlong laughed at tiie solemnities and moderatedrnthe manias of the mere politician.”rnThe majorit- ot women who werern”strong and sconiful” has been replacedrnb a majorit” that is excessiel- “submissirne, prostrate, and penitent” in tiic facernof a politician.rnThe kind of men who used to frec[ueiitrnThe Blue Pig —and the (real) womenrnwho refused to —understood tiiat politiesrnwas iiiosth’ bunk. “We knew that thernconntrv would not be ruined b politiciansrnhalf so uttcrK and sweepingl- as itrncould be ruined b nurse maids.”rnToda’s nursemaids are too busyrnwatching Crossfire (or one of the otiicrrnubic[uitous political talk shows) to exerciserntiie exquisite and beautiful hranmthatrnonce was theirs b^ tradition, culture,rnand nature. Rather tiiaii retain creativerncontrol over tiic real stuff of life —hearthrnand home —the suffragettes pined for arnmilk-toast version of The Blue Pig — arnworld in which modern she-men arcrncontent to share the bar with CokiernRoberts, Man Matalin, and Oprah Winfrey.rnThe brae new world won by thernsuffragettes and maintained by the establishmentrnis full of insipid homes andrnBlue Pigs, in which no one is content.rnRush Limbaugh keeps telling thernGOP troops not to worr-; the polls don’trnmean anything. Bush will win on character.rnBut w hat tiie Limbaughs do not realizcrnis that the Bushes (and the BobrnDoles) of this world arc not welcomed atrntiie new Blue Pig—unless they becomernmore like Al Core and Bill Clinton. Perhapsrntiiat is w hv Bush went on Oprah andrnsaid that, as president, he would “usher inrna new era of tough love”; or wli- PatrnBuchanan picked Ezola Fo.ster to be hisrnrunning mate. Still, both Bush andrnBuehanaii look and sound too much likernrelics from The Blue Pig: They will neverrnbe comfortable on Oprah’s stage. Andrnthat is whv tlie- cannot win.rn-Aaron D. WolfrnEDUCATION is a hot topic this electionrnyear, and both Al Gore and GeorgernW, Bush are tr ing to claim tiie maiitie ofrntiic “Education President.” To listen tornthe hvo campaigns, ‘Pexas either has tiiernworst public schools in the nation, or thernbest; the media should be able to determinernwhich campaign’s claims are closerrnto the truth, but thev’re more interestedrnin reporting tiie debate tiian in providingrnvoters w itli tiie facts. One point on whichrnbotii Ciore and Bush seem to agree, liowe’rncr, is tiiat public education is wocfull)rnunderfunded: Bush has proposed sinkingrnmillions of new dollars into Head Startrn(among other failed programs), whilernGore has promised to continue tiic Clintonrnadministration’s plan to get eer-rnchild in America hooked up to the Internet.rnNo matter which one wins, the Departmentrnof Education is here to sta-,rnand the federal role in education is certainrnto increase.rnWith federal inter’eiition, of course,rncomes greater regulation of educationrnand more federal spending. Althoughrniiian- conservaties have argued thatrntiicre is some sort of metaphvsical differencernbehveen spending tax dollars on educationrnand using private money —go-rneniment spending incvitabh- corrupts,rnwhile private funds lead to nothing butrngoodness and light—there is a growingrnbody of eidence that suggests that iii-rn6/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn