Pusillanimous Debates Versus Real Politics: Bring on Negative Campaigning
If George Bush loses, note a few points in tonight’s debate: Bush talked a tough line against "amnesty." But he let John Kerry move to his right on illegal immigration, even though Kerry didn’t mention the 25 Chechens who moved across the Arizona border. Bush also let Kerry off the hook on racial quotas. Moreover, Bush let Kerry go on his war protest record—Kerry, who tried to seize the mantle of Ronald Reagan. In June Reagan was rightly eulogized as a great President, but few emphasized that he was also a divisive figure. He became governor largely by campaigning against Berkeley radicals, and he lost none of that vigor when he ran for president. In other words, Reagan ran against the politics of John Kerry. He could unite people because he initially divided them. Kerry claims he will unite the country, divided by backward Bush policies. Yet these divisions-- over multiculturalism, sexual liberation, capitalism, national defense, and limited government-- are a legacy of sixties’ radicalism among our elite. A Kerry victory adds another triumph to that revolution, which is not welcomed by most Americans. This helps explain why Kerry, like Edwards, brought up Cheney’s lesbian daughter. Not mere mean-spiritedness (though it's not a sin to love one's work), this most un-Christian remark was calculated to prevent the Republicans from occupying not just the right but the center in the culture wars. (It is not just about hitting the Republican base or portraying Republican hypocrisy.) The Kerry camp knows the power of the same-sex marriage issue. Would that the Bush campaign act on what they surely know as well. (Lynne Cheney's response.) The truth won't emerge in these "debates." Bring on the negative campaigning.
Ken Masugi |