Introducing the Election 2000 Time Capsule Project -- an informal and proudly unscientific means of tracking the conventional political wisdom through the campaign season. The first in a series of regular online dispatches from The Atlantic's national correspondent

by James Fallows

Everyone knows that fashions change. But after a moment has passed and a fad has waned, it takes superhuman imaginative skill to believe that people actually were enthusiastic about things we've re-classified as passé. A century ago, men thought that wearing big mutton-chop sideburns made them attractive. Two decades ago, some designers at American Motors Corporation put time and energy into creating the Gremlin -- which some customers willingly paid for and took home with pride. In the mid-1990s, some teenagers thought that a revival of bell-bottom pants would be clever, and everyone was interested in Kato Kaelin.

These people were not necessarily stupider than we are now, even though their preferences and actions now seem dumb. Similarly, we are no more stupid than the people -- including older versions of ourselves -- who will look back on year-2000 trends and wonder what we could have been thinking. My nominees for what will look silliest a few months or years from now include: body-piercing and tattoos, saying "wassssupppp?," and the general money-fever of the "dot-com."

A special version of this historical revisionism affects politics. Once we know how everything turns out, it becomes hard to believe that people could ever really have doubted the outcome. Of course Harry Truman would come back to beat Thomas Dewey. After all, we know Truman to have been a great man, and Dewey now looks like a stiff. Of course Ronald Reagan was going to win in two huge landslides. Of course Newt Gingrich's brashness doomed him to fall. We look back on the Dukakis campaign of 1988 and see the picture of the candidate in the tank. That lamentable image blocks out any recollection of why serious Democrats thought he offered their best chance against the elder George Bush.

We've already taken a few turns through this cycle in election year 2000. Six months ago, "everyone" knew that Al Gore was pathetic and unelectable. Two months ago, John McCain had the magic and the excitement after his win in New Hampshire. In hindsight, it is "obvious" that McCain didn't have enough money or, perhaps, discipline to hold off George W. Bush in the long haul -- and that Bill Bradley didn't have the money, grit, or perseverance to become the first challenger in modern times to beat a sitting Vice President for the party's nomination.

Other things will be "obvious" to us after the election in November. Conceivably it will be "obvious" that Al Gore, like Jimmy Carter twenty years ago, was too stiff to beat a folksy challenger underestimated by the national elites -- especially if the economy makes people worry. Or perhaps, if the economy stays strong, it will be "obvious" that the public is comfortable dividing national power between the parties, leaving the Republicans to control the Congress while staying the course with Gore (and, presumably, Clinton economics) in the White House rather than taking a flyer with a man "obviously" under-experienced for the job.

But right at this moment it's not obvious what the future obvious truths will be. Thus this Time Capsule project. At the beginning of each month from now through Election Day, we'll take readings of several crucial variables -- and then chart the movement month by month, to see how the indicators of economic welfare change and to track what parts of obvious conventional wisdom hold up and which are suddenly overturned. Most dispensers of political opinion have built-in public amnesia on their side. The old newspapers get sent out to the recycling bin, the old columns move to the bottom of the online index of a pundit's work, so there's no ready reminder of what people were saying six months ago. Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom Watch" goes only one week back in charting the shift in views. But we'll keep the readings of this time capsule on display as they move from April to November, charting the changes in perceived political reality.

Since we're still in, and not yet past, the enthusiasm of the dot-com age, we'll consider this first month's listing a "public beta," as at a Web start-up. Suggestions for other measures that should be added to the index are welcomed; please send them to [email protected]. Here we go.

Political Readings as of April 1, 2000
This list to be updated on the first of every month until Election Day. Note: The unemployment, inflation, and trade-deficit data are the latest figures released by the beginning of each month, often with a reporting delay of a month or two. For instance, the latest trade figures available as of April 1, 2000, were for January 2000. But the figures noted here are the latest ones each candidate, and the electorate, has to deal with as of the start of each relevant month. The price of oil is the NYMEX Light Sweet Crude Oil price per barrel.

Readings	April 1
Dow Jones Industrial Average:	10980
NASDAQ:	4458
Unemployment Rate:	4.1%
Inflation (CPI):	3.2%
Price of Oil:	$26.90 per barrel
Monthly Trade Deficit:	$28.0 Billion
Political Flap of the Day:	Elián Gonzalez: Initially a balance between family values and political freedom. By now a bizarre test of federal authority: will Miami officials really urge defiance of federal marshals if the INS says Elián belongs back with his father? Op-ed column in The New York Times calls Miami "out-of-control banana republic" inside the United States. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, neither running for re-election, support INS and judicial rulings to repatriate Elián.
Candidates' Positions on Current Flap:	Bush: Anti-repatriation from the start. Made much of this in Republican debates. Gore: At end of March says he backs special legislation that would make it easier to keep Elián here. Claims this has been his stance all along and has nothing to do with the battle for the Cuban-American swing vote in Florida. Widely disbelieved.
Prevailing Pundit View of Campaigns:	Bush: After the Republican primary, things can only get better. That is, unless the costs of the primary -- using tons of money, embracing the far right to beat McCain, leaving McCain angry, sounding dopey in debates -- carry over and prove too burdensome against Gore. Gore: After the Democratic primary, things can only get worse. That is, unless the strengths he developed in the primary -- relentless demolition of opponents, unified party behind him -- carry over and prove decisive against Bush.
Best Issue:	Bush: Education reform. Gore: Stay-the-course with peace and prosperity.
Biggest Vulnerability:	Bush: Lightweight cheerleader image. Gore: Nixonian win-at-any-cost image, plus Clintonian pander-bear tendencies.
Political Nightmare:	Bush: Bonehead comment during debate or press conference. Endorsement from David Duke. Gore: Dow Jones average at 5300 and gas at $3.80 a gallon on Election Day. Also, new fundraising scandal.
VP Prospects:	Bush: Dream candidate number one: Colin Powell. Number two: John McCain. Others actually available: Elizabeth Dole, George Pataki, Tom Ridge, John Engler, etc. Gore: Dream candidate: Bill Clinton. Actually available: Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, Dianne Feinstein, etc.
All-Out Media Supporters:	Bush: None yet evident. Many conservative columnists were plumping hard for McCain. Gore: Martin Peretz (owner of The New Republic).
All-Out Media Enemies:	Bush: Numerous predictable ones. Unexpected hostility from conservatives (and ex-McCain supporters) William Safire, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol. Mockery from Maureen Dowd. Gore: Numerous. Wall Street Journal editorial page and Rush Limbaugh least surprising and most committed.