6/26/00 1:40 p.m.
Debate Prep
Another problem for Gore: He has to lower expectations.

By Ramesh Ponnuru, NR senior editor

he conventions haven't happened yet, and already expectations for the presidential debates are getting out of hand for Al Gore. He's supposed to make quick work of George W. Bush. The cover story of The Atlantic this month, in which James Fallows chronicles how Gore became the hit-and-run debater he is today, will only make the expectations higher. (This is, incidentally, the second issue in a row in which The Atlantic has explained how a good Harvard kid went bad. Last month's cover boy was the Unabomber — whose writings, come to think of it, sometimes sound like those of the vice president.)

In yesterday's Washington Post, meanwhile, David von Drehle reports that Gov. Bush regards his sometimes awkward speech patterns as a mark of sincerity. If so, Bush has certainly been sincere. He's also coining new words at a rate that would make Shakespeare proud: The last fortnight has seen "emotionality" and "analyzation." If one were trying to think of particular campaign events that might derail Bush between now and November, what would come to mind would be a gaffe, a disastrous debate performance, or both in conjunction.

The danger for Gore is that expectations are so high that he won't get credit for winning unless he really drubs Bush. So he's got to lower expectations for himself, and raise them for Bush. This will be no small task. Perhaps Gore should invite Ralph Nader to participate in the debates, which would have the added advantage of making him look moderate, even conservative. Or perhaps he can spread the word that he expects to lose the expectations game, the better to win the meta-expectations game.

Then again, Gore could try something revolutionary: to challenge the expectations game itself. Whether someone did better than expected doesn't matter as much, his aides can argue, as who actually won the debate. The Bush camp, of course, can respond with equal justice that debates themselves shouldn't matter so much when it comes to picking a president.

The Ergonomics of Joy
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration may be encountering some resistance to its "workplace ergonomics" proposals (a set of regulations to prevent such ailments as carpal-tunnel syndrome). Critics may be objecting to their cost and intrusiveness, their vagueness, their lack of scientific foundation, and the questionable process by which they were developed. The Senate may have voted against the regulations last week.

Still, Marthe Kent, OSHA's director of safety standards program and head of the ergonomics effort, couldn't be happier at her job. "I like having a very direct and very powerful impact on worker safety and health," she recently told the Synergist, a newsletter of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. "If you put out a reg, it matters. I think that's really where the thrill comes from. And it is a thrill; it's a high."

Later in the article, she adds, "I love it; I absolutely love it. I was born to regulate. I don't know why, but that's very true. So as long as I'm regulating, I'm happy."

The Left v. Fonda
The current issue of The Nation mentions Jane Fonda's expression of regret for having posed for a picture with North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners under the heading "News of the Week in Review." It turns out that treason is bad after all, as long as it's treason against Hanoi.