Posted on 02/01/2004 11:49:15 AM PST by ambrose
Sun 1 Feb 2004
Why John Kerry must pretend not to be a liberal
GERARD DE GROOT
ON WEDNESDAY morning, a newsreader at the BBC nearly made me spill my coffee. She said, quite clearly: "Senator John Kennedy of Massachusetts has won the New Hampshire presidential primary." "Excuse me?" I said, to no one in particular. Had I perhaps gone to bed in 2004 and woken up in 1960? I looked at the television screen and reassured myself that it was still in colour. The broadcast showed a tall, skinny, craggy-faced man with a very large smile - definitely not JFK. "Kerry, you idiot, not Kennedy," my wife yelled. I think she was yelling at the TV.
Leaving aside the newsreader’s slip of the tongue, there’s something déjà vu about this presidential contest. It’s 2004, another election year, and yet again a Massachusetts liberal is running for president. Now I’ve got nothing against Massachusetts liberals; in fact, I agree with most of what they represent. But for the past few decades they’ve reminded me of Sisyphus pushing his huge stone. They keep trying to run for president, and keep failing miserably. Remember poor old Michael Dukakis, who got creamed by George Bush in 1988?
The last liberal from the North to win the presidency was Kennedy. That was 44 years ago. Since then, all of the successful Democrats - Johnson, Carter and Clinton - have come from the South. If you throw in Al Gore, who hails from Tennessee and who won the popular vote in 2000, you have what any psephologist would call a trend.
For more than 100 years, from 1860 to 1964, the South voted solidly Democrat. But the trust southerners placed in the party was shattered in the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson pushed through a raft of civil rights measures. Since then, the region has leaned heavily toward the Republicans, a party more in tune with the South’s conservative instincts. Since some southern support is essential to a successful presidential campaign, it behoves the Democrats to select a candidate from below the Mason-Dixon Line.
This year the Democrats seem determined to ignore history. While much will be revealed on Tuesday when seven states hold primaries or caucuses, it looks like the party has decided to line up behind Kerry, if only to demonstrate the kind of unity that has been lacking of late. The campaign of Kerry’s closest rival, former frontrunner Howard Dean (another Northern liberal), is melting quicker than the snowman in my garden. Therefore, if you fancy a flutter, put some money on Kerry to win the Democratic nomination.
As a Northern liberal, Kerry is in for a very rough ride against Bush. He insists he is not overawed by the challenge of winning the South. "The South is not another country," he remarked. Yet the mere fact he had to make that remark underlines the fact that regional differences remain significant.
But while the Northern label might prove a liability, the liberal tag could be a curse. Kerry was second in command when Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts. During his years in the Senate, he’s come to be identified with liberal causes - civil liberties, welfare, socialised medicine, defence cuts, etc - and earns consistently high ratings from liberal groups.
None of this would matter if he continued to practise politics in New England. But he’s running for president, and in most of the country ‘liberal’ is a very dirty word. As a result, he’s been forced to deny his own progressive credentials.
It’s a pity John Kerry can’t simply run for president as John Kerry, since he’s a very impressive man. Unlike many candidates of late - Bush, Clinton, Gore, Quayle - he has no reason to be embarrassed about what he did during the Vietnam War. He was a Navy lieutenant who fought in real battles. This sort of thing should not really matter any more, but it does. Kerry can expect to score some points off Bush when Vietnam is raised.
But it’s what Kerry did after Vietnam that is most impressive. In April 1971, he testified at Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the war. At that time, the US was engaged in a slow process of withdrawal, governed by a misguided belief that some credibility could be salvaged. In perhaps the most profound statement made during those hearings, Kerry posed a painful question to politicians: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Those who witnessed that testimony concluded that a new political star had risen.
The fact Kerry criticised the war in Vietnam from the position of a man who had fought gave him immense credibility. By the time he ran for the Senate in 1984 he was already known nationally as a political heavyweight. During his 20 years in the upper house, he’s used his credibility skilfully, particularly in debates on foreign and defence policy. There is perhaps no Democrat in the Senate more experienced and trusted on matters of international affairs.
Kerry is a well-respected senator, but good senators do not necessarily make good presidents. The Senate is the thinking man’s chamber; among this elite group of legislators exclusivity encourages aloofness. Because senators have to run for re-election only every six years, they do not need to be great communicators. But Americans expect their president to be a regular guy, someone with whom they’d like to share a beer. Reagan and Clinton had that quality, as does George W Bush. In contrast, Al Gore (another senator) lacked the common touch. Kerry suffers the same deficiency; his ersatz bonhomie always seems carefully stage-managed.
Kerry’s Senate career might prove a liability in one other way. Over the past two decades, he’s voted on thousands of bills. Rest assured Bush’s team is right now looking for inconsistencies or embarrassments in that voting record. One inconsistency has already caused concern: in 1991 he voted against war in Iraq, while in 2002 he voted in favour, a switch which frankly seems bizarre. Though Kerry has ready a carefully crafted explanation, to most observers the first vote looks principled and the second opportunistic. The first was the vote of a senator, the second that of a man running for president.
It is not enough for Kerry to emulate Kennedy, because Kennedy could not get elected today. If Kerry is to win, he will have to transform himself. Granted, he can’t make himself into a Southerner. But he can pretend not to be a liberal. He’s already begun that transformation, by emphasising fiscal conservatism and opposing gay marriage. But Kerry has also to find himself a heart. Some progress has been made. He’s making snappier speeches, and has been laughing at himself more. He’s also borrowed tactics from Clinton which don’t come naturally.
After the transformation is complete, an electable candidate might emerge. But will this cyborg still be John Kerry, and will anyone believe in him?
Which sells well in the midwest.....right Mikey Dukakis?
hahahahaha...this one slipped by the proofreader.
If you wrote down John F. Kennedy's policies, they would be described today as "right-wing" by Ted Kennedy.
I do not know if you still live in Texas but things are much different in the "blue" states, particularly in the urban areas.
This election is scary and I think the GOP is in trouble. But even if the GOP pulls it off the notion that every election is make or break for the country is hard to bear.
The solutions are so very clear, the failures of the past so obvious yet we are unable to even move toward and adult articulation of the problems let alone the resolution of them. It is madness.
Like the two letters here wrote to the same constituent only 9 days apart expressing his support and opposition to the liberation of Kuwait.
Oh it is worse...they know some of his tricks now. If you are a New yorker you must reel at the sheer irrationality of these people. I do not move in the sort of circles that I need be timid with liberals, I can tell them what I think (and even bait them) with out fear to life, limb or livelyhood. It is like trying to sober up a drunk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.