In the following interview, Brookings Institution scholar Thomas E. Mann, a political scientist and leading authority on the U.S. electoral process, discusses the upcoming 2000 presidential election, with its domestic and foreign policy ramifications. Mann covers the current state of U.S. politics, the Bush-Gore contest, the likely foreign policies of both presidential candidates, the potential outcomes in the House of Representatives and Senate races, the role of minor parties and other election-related issues.

Q: A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts says there are many important issues in the upcoming election. Yet, the report also states that the American people aren't paying much attention. Do you agree with both parts of that assertion?

A: I think it's indisputably the case that this is a very high-stakes election. The presidency is up for grabs, as are control of the House and Senate, and control of state legislatures that will redraw congressional and state legislative district lines after the 2000 census [population count]. Also at stake are several seats on the Supreme Court, assuming some of the current justices retire. This election will determine all kinds of future policy directions, and possibly realign the party system.

It's an exciting election for people like me who pay a great deal of attention to this. And yet, at the same time, throughout this year, there's been little evidence of public interest in the election. America is a hotbed of "social rest." The country is doing exceptionally well.

Economically, Americans are feeling good about the direction the country is moving in, and they're feeling good about their own personal financial situations. A whole host of social indicators have improved over the last couple of years. Real wages for low- and middle-income voters are, finally, moving up as well. There's a lot of optimism in the country.

And yet Americans have a certain distaste for politics, especially the way in which Washington politics have been conducted in recent years. They were appalled by both the presidential scandal and the impeachment effort -- perhaps, more by the latter than the former. And they don't like the partisan bitterness that occurs. Americans tend to withdraw from active attention to public affairs, so there is this disjuncture between stakes and interest.

Having said that, it's important to note that we're beginning to see an uptick in public attention. After the party conventions, we saw increasing interest in the election, and we saw people who identify with one of the parties finding their way home to their candidates. I expect that, with debates and other major events in the campaign, we'll see a little more interest than we've seen thus far.

Remember, America has permanent campaigns; they seem never to end. We can't blame citizens for not paying attention year-round to these long, drawn-out affairs. Now we have a concentrated period of about two months. I think you'll see more interest and attention.

Q: Is there a paradigm shift in American society? Do people feel that the federal government is becoming less important and has less effect on their lives? Are there other centers of power developing? Is that part of the problem?

A: Interestingly, we're seeing a bit of the opposite occur. One impact of Bill Clinton's presidency has been a restoration in a belief that the federal government has an important, if limited, role to play in American society.

Think back to the 1980 election and inaugural when Ronald Reagan defeated the incumbent, Jimmy Carter. Reagan said in his first inaugural speech, "Government is the not the solution, government is the problem." Now come forward two decades to 2000. What are the candidates talking about? They're talking about what the federal government can do to provide a new prescription drug benefit for seniors; they're talking about new regulation of health maintenance organizations; they're talking about a new federal role in improving public education in America. There's a lot of focus on the federal government.

In spite of declaring the era of big government is over in one of his State of the Union speeches, President Clinton has managed to restore some credibility and confidence in the federal government's ability to handle some important problems that can't be dealt with strictly through economic markets, or at local and state levels.

We have a complex political economy. Markets are dominant. We have had an extraordinary economic revival, in part because of use of new technologies and the entrepreneurial spirit in America. We have a very complex, robust federal system in which responsibilities are shared across different levels of government: federal, state and local.

All of that is true. And yet there remains an important role for the federal government. And I think Bill Clinton's triumph as president is that by embracing some Republican proposals, he has succeeded in neutralizing certain political wedge issues associated with budget deficits, crime and welfare. By doing that, he has managed to restore some public trust in and belief in the efficacy of a limited, but nonetheless substantial, role for the federal government.

Q: You mean, budget deficits, crime and welfare are less of a concern than they were when Clinton became president?

A: Well, there's no question that when you turn endless projections of budget deficits into projections of budget surpluses, you create a more favorable environment for governmental action. When you turn a welfare program into more of a jobs program, you get less public resentment of government give-aways to "undeserving" people. When you begin to show some improvement in crime statistics, then you begin to get a little more favorable public response to the government's ability to provide for the security of its citizens. So yes, I think successes in the performance of government and society over the last years have improved the climate for government.

Q: Is the success of Clinton's centrist liberal approach akin to the success of the center-left in Western Europe?

A: It is fascinating to note similarities across democratic countries. Center-left governments have been doing well in recent years, not just in the U.S. but throughout Europe and, indeed, in other parts of the world, as well. I think the forces of globalization have required old-style left governments to reconcile their public philosophies and ideologies with the market and the imperatives of the market.

Yet, at the same time, as globalization and new technology create enormous opportunities for economic growth and revitalization, they also create problems. There are problems of inequality, problems of losers in the new global economy. And I think many countries have come to believe that government is going to have to continue to play some role. Yes, in enhancing markets, but in supplementing markets, as well.

Q: Have both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore by now defined their international style and approach to foreign affairs?

A: I think we have a much better sense of each presidential candidate's approach to foreign policy now than we did six months ago. There are similarities and differences. Both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore are genuine internationalists. There is no isolationism, there's no protectionism, there's no turning away from the world or from the United States' special responsibilities in it.

There are no major differences in the approach to the Middle East and no great differences of either Gore or Bush with the Clinton administration's approach to trying to broker an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. There are no major differences in our relations with China. Both candidates support normal trading relations with China and basic engagement.

Having said that, differences are emerging. There are different philosophies, different orientations. I think it's fair to say that Vice President Gore is instinctively more multilateral in his orientation, while Governor Bush tends to be more unilateral. Bush emphasizes the importance of nurturing our most important alliances, but at the same time speaks forthrightly about moving forward with a national missile defense, whatever our European allies and whatever the Russians may think about it. The Bush camp has confidence that they can bring the allies around and bring the Russians around. They oftentimes speak of a limited set of important objectives on which the U.S. is prepared to move. National missile defense is an important element of that. Shoring up relations with our core allies, putting a high priority on North Asia -- in particular, Korea, Japan, China, the Taiwan Straits -- is also an important element.

I think there's also in the Bush camp less of a willingness to entertain committing U.S. troops for humanitarian intervention. There are already some rumblings of a desire to pull out the limited number of U.S. troops that remain stationed in the Balkans, a belief that the Europeans ought to provide all of the ground forces. This will not make for good alliance-building in Europe. But already the feeling is we ought to be focused on major areas that affect our national security. And so I think, in general, there's less of a willingness to join with the United Nations in peacekeeping operations, certainly, little interest in intervening in Africa.

The Bush foreign policy people believe in a sort of realism in politics, a set of limited objectives, as well as clarity in enunciating our interests and our positions. They have a willingness to move alone, if need be, at times, to advance those interests. But they also have a desire to shore up our central alliances and not have such a scattershot approach to foreign policy. They are not yet as involved in the "periphery," as they define it.

The Gore conception is quite different. The Gore conception goes under the term "forward engagement." It argues that the world has changed: the threats are diverse, are much different. The Gore people believe that AIDS and chemical and biological weapons proliferation are central threats to our national security in that we have to be out there engaged with those problems, trying to ward off more serious threats to our security that might occur.

They are more reticent about moving unilaterally on a national missile defense, more inclined to wait and see what the technology can do, more inclined to negotiate it with the Russians and with our allies.

I think the final nuance of difference I'd point to is international economic policy. I think the Bush notion of free trade is that it is essential to global growth and U.S. economic health. And they would push hard for fast-track authority to enter new regional and global negotiations to reduce trade barriers.

Q: A fast-track authority from Congress?

A: A fast-track authority from Congress, which, in effect, is sort of a parliamentary device that guarantees that when the president negotiates an agreement with other countries, it comes to Congress under special rules that allow an up or down vote and no amendments that would take that agreement apart.

Vice President Gore has indicated his support for continued reduction of trade barriers. But he has promised to give more attention to labor standards, environmental standards, and to account for those in the broader international economic arena. Whether it's possible to do that and still reach agreements and get fast-track authority is a big question.

So Gore would lean more toward labor and the environmental groups than Bush would.

Q: Who are the major foreign policy players on each team at the moment?

A: Governor Bush has assembled an impressive team of advisors, many of whom have served in past Republican administrations -- the Bush administration and the Reagan administration. The point person is Condoleezza Rice, who was a Soviet specialist on the National Security Council staff and then a faculty member and provost at Stanford University. She's working virtually full-time on national security matters. There are a whole host of others: Paul Wolfowitz, a former Reagan official, dean of the Johns Hopkins School of International Affairs; Richard Armitage, Richard Perle. There are many other former Republican officials who are counseling Governor Bush, who does not have extensive experience in foreign policy. Bob Zoellick is another one. He was deputy to Jim Baker at the State Department and in the White House and is a very experienced, intelligent foreign policy advisor. In some ways, their presence is reassuring to people in other countries because they know many of the advisors, if not the governor.

With Vice President Gore, who's been in the White House for seven-and-a-half years, there are a number of familiar figures in the Clinton administration. But I would say that some key people would emerge as important figures. A Gore administration would include Leon Feurth, his long-time advisor in Congress and in the White House, and Richard Holbrooke, who is now the U.S. Representative to the United Nations. It would include the person who is organizing his task force of foreign policy advisors, Bruce Jentleson, who's dean of the Terry Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University.

Q: What are the differences in the relationships between the advisors and the candidate?

A: Bush is clearly being briefed and instructed by his seasoned advisors and is taking his cues from a team that has had a good deal of experience. Gore has been working on these issues for decades. He's knowledgeable and self-confident about foreign policy and, therefore, he is more inclined to shape his advisors than vice versa.

So there's no point in looking to the advisors to get a hint at what a Gore foreign policy would be. It would be better to look at the candidate.

Q: How about the congressional election? What is at stake here and which party is in line to dominate Congress after this election?

A: The outcome of the House and Senate elections remains uncertain. I think they are likely to be affected by the outcome of the presidential race. If Vice President Gore were to win the presidential race, say, with 52 or 53 percent of the major party vote, I think that would be enough to have a tipping effect in the House and produce the necessary gain for the Democrats to allow them to be the majority party there.

It still would be a bit of a reach in the Senate for the Democrats to achieve a majority. In one sense, their task has been eased. Senator Paul Coverdell, a Republican from Georgia, died recently and was replaced by former Democratic Governor Zell Miller, who is running for the rest of the term -- four years -- and he's very likely to win that election.

So now the Democrats are just four seats shy of a majority. And given the number of competitive Senate races, it's not inconceivable that they could pull it off. Ironically, if Gore won the presidential race, Lieberman would become vice president, and would have to give up being a senator from Connecticut. In Connecticut, there's a Republican governor who would, no doubt, appoint a Republican replacement.

There's also the possibility that the majority status in the Senate could shift over the course of the term. We have two very senior Republicans -- Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond -- who represent states with Democratic governors. If one or both of them left the Senate, they would be replaced, and the margin could be so close as to shift the majority within a congressional term.

So the Senate remains likely to stay in Republican hands. But if Gore has a strong showing in the presidential race, there are enough competitive seats up for grabs in the Senate to make a Democratic Senate possible, but it would probably be one that would not be fully stable during the course of the term.

In the House, I'd say that Democrats have a slight advantage in terms of there being more vulnerable, open Republican seats than Democratic seats. The most interesting observation to make about the House elections is that there are 435 House seats up, and yet only about three dozen in which there is a serious contest going on. Both parties are focusing on a very narrow band of engagement, and the outcome will be determined in those three dozen seats.

I'm guessing, if Gore wins, the Democrats will pick up sufficient seats in the House to produce a very narrow Democratic majority. If Bush were to win this election, the odds favor the Republicans holding their majority. So I think the most likely outcome is that we will have one party controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, both the presidency and at least one house of the Congress.

Q: There have been several other candidates in this presidential election with popular appeal. Do the Democrat Bill Bradley and the Republican Senator John McCain, who opposed Gore and Bush in the primary contests within their own parties, still have a significant role to play in the upcoming election? And what about Ralph Nader on the left and Patrick Buchanan on the right representing third parties?

A: Bradley, in the end, became a good soldier. He endorsed Vice President Gore, indicated a willingness to campaign for him. But Bradley's candidacy proved rather disappointing, and I think he will not be a significant factor in the race.

John McCain also proved to be a loyal soldier and supported Governor Bush. But I'm expecting him to play a more important role in individual congressional races. A number of Republicans in the House and Senate have asked him to come in and campaign for them. And I think, to the extent he has any impact, it will be seen in the congressional races.

As far as Pat Buchanan is concerned, his Reform Party had a chaotic convention. There remains a dispute over who should get the $12.6 million in public financing that is due to the formal nominee of the Reform Party. The odds are that Mr. Buchanan will get those resources.* But he is so diminished as a candidate that even with $12 million to spend, it's unlikely that he will garner more than 2 or 3 percent of the vote. [*The Federal Election Commission decided on September 13, to give the money to Pat Buchanan.]

Ralph Nader seemed to have struck a chord with more liberal constituencies early in the year. But since the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles, most Democrats have come home to their party. Nader support has sunk from 6 or 7 to 2 or 3 percent in national polls.

In a very close election, it's conceivable that a 2 or 3 percent for Nader, say, in states like Michigan or Washington or Oregon or Maine could make the difference and tip the advantage to Bush. So we shouldn't discount any possibility. But right now it looks as if the conditions in the country are not right for dissidents. People are pretty content, they're generally satisfied with the two major party candidates. And the best guess is that neither Buchanan nor Nader will hit 5 percent and neither will have a measurable impact on the outcome of the election.