Posted on 09/23/2004 10:48:18 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
How the Democrat can revive his faltering campaign
IN SEPTEMBER 1980 Ronald Reagan was stuck behind Jimmy Carter in the polls. His campaign was in such a shambles that he had to sack his campaign manager. And he was dogged by the belief that he was unelectable. All that changed with a single debate—and Reagan crushed Mr Carter by more than 8m votes.
John Kerry is no Ronald Reagan (though one supporter recently introduced him twice as John Kennedy). But he still has time to turn his campaign round. It is true that the Republicans have the wind in their sails at the moment (New Jersey is now considered a swing state, for heaven's sake). But swing voters seem in an unusually volatile mood. Mr Kerry still has a lot going for him—particularly the energy of a Democratic rank-and-file that will do anything to get George Bush out of the White House, and widespread worries about where the country is heading.
How can Mr Kerry translate all this energy and anxiety into victory? This week the Kerry camp produced a surprising answer: focus on Iraq. Mr Kerry had originally planned to spend the autumn talking about the economy and health care. But now—thanks to the influence of a group of Clintonites who have been drafted into his campaign—he has put Iraq at the centre of his campaign. Mr Kerry's pivotal speech in New York this week, ripping into Mr Bush's Iraq foray, may prove similar to Hubert Humphrey's denunciation of the Vietnam war in late September 1968, which narrowed the gap with Richard Nixon.
Why choose Iraq? After all, Nixon still won in 1968. And Mr Kerry's performance on Iraq has been dismal. While Mr Bush has stuck to a simple message (that the war in Iraq is an essential part of the war on terror), the Democrat has tied himself in ever more elaborate knots. It is hard to think of a position on Iraq that he has not taken. For all that, he is probably right to focus on it.
This is partly to do with the paucity of alternatives. Mr Kerry's standard speech thus far has been a general attack, typified by his meandering midnight rebuttal of Mr Bush's convention speech. In theory, this provided a way to pick off groups of wavering voters. But it has also reinforced the impression that Mr Kerry is a long-winded senator with no priorities.
So he has to focus on something. Why not that old Clinton staple, the economy? Or one of the issues where the Democrats have a clear advantage, such as health care? Mr Kerry has certainly turned up the volume on Mr Bush's domestic record. But it does not look enough to win through. First, the economic news hardly looks bad enough. And, second, the war on terror (broadly defined) seems to be the main issue of this electoral cycle; back in 2002, the Democrats were hammered in the mid-terms when they tried to focus on domestic policy, in effect ceding national security to the Republicans.
Mr Kerry's advisers insist that Iraq should be his issue. The grisly newspaper headlines, with their catalogue of beheadings and bombings, could easily shift public opinion against Mr Bush. But how can Mr Kerry make a better job of the subject?
Some of his reshaped strategy looks obvious. He should stop agonising publicly about his two notorious Senate votes (in favour of giving Mr Bush war powers and against giving him $87 billion to pay for the war). If the election becomes a referendum on his voting record, he is done for. Similarly, he needs to stop worrying about offending factions within the Democratic Party. The Democrats hate Mr Bush so much that they will follow Mr Kerry wherever he leads, as long as it is not round in circles.
But which direction should he take? Mr Kerry's speech this week shows he is still torn between two positions—condemning the war outright (he called it a mistake) and focusing on the management of the conflict (he claimed Mr Bush was not doing enough to win the struggle). The first would thrill many Democrats; but it would also surely delight the Republicans, giving them a golden opportunity to paint him as a peacenik leader of a peacenik party. Mr Kerry didn't defeat Howard Dean in the snows of Iowa only to morph into him eight months later.
The competence question
“Mismanagement” certainly offers a less thrilling rallying call. (It is unfortunate that Mr Kerry's old boss in Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis, is forever associated with the idea that an election can be about competence rather than ideology.) But in this particular case, it surely offers Mr Kerry a better line of attack.
First, it is a far less contentious charge to prove. By any reasonable standard, the White House has a mind-boggling record of incompetence in Iraq, from the lack of post-war planning to the disgrace of Abu Ghraib. Mr Kerry can tap into the sense that Mr Bush is out of touch with what is happening on the ground, especially in Iraq's no-go areas. The more Mr Bush repeats his mantra about the march of liberty, the more he risks sounding like a Texan version of “Comical Ali”, the Iraqi propaganda minister who declared that the infidel dogs were in retreat even as American troops rolled into Baghdad.
Second, Mr Kerry can broaden the theme of mismanagement. Look, he can argue, the same idealistic incompetence that has dogged the Iraq war can be seen throughout the administration's policies: witness, for instance, its fiscal recklessness in cutting taxes while increasing spending.
Lastly, focusing on mismanagement allows Mr Kerry indirectly to deal with one of his biggest handicaps—the likeability gap. Most Americans have a soft spot for Mr Bush (and recoil from assertions that he deceived them into an unnecessary war). But many also have a sneaking worry about his competence. Is the amiable frat boy really a match for our dangerous times? Or is he being manipulated by ideological zealots? If Mr Kerry can use Iraq to reinforce doubts about Mr Bush's competence, then he has a chance of pulling off a Reagan; but like Hubert Humphrey, he does not have much time.
OK, now can we get serious and not disrespect the public AND the memory of Ronald Reagan with stating such an obvious reality?
Somehow I can't fathom the idea of Ronald Reagan stating...oh, say...."I was against tearing down that wall, before I was for it Mr. Gorbachev!"
It just doesn't have a comforting ring to it.
That's just too perfect.
LOL
That's the point. If they took their eyes off of US and paid attention to their own problems, their countries might enjoy more prosperity with lower unemployment too. But NOOOOO. Buncha lazy bums.
As strains of "The Blue Danube" echoe through our heads.
BUMP!
It's just the way The Economist is. All in all, though, their editorial line tends to run somewhere between moderate Tory and Tony "We-are-all-Thatcherites-now" Blair's version of the British left, so they're fairly worth reading despite the tendency to give unsolicited advice.
Re the photo -- Bill & Hill come across as almost genuinely affectionate when compared to the Heinz-Kerrys. I swear these two are the biggest couple of phoney baloney "love birds" I've ever seen.
Kerry being compared to Reagan either makes me laugh hysterically or vomit.
"And I am Elizabeth Taylor"
We always suspected that about you...Howlin'!(LOL)
Yeah, and George Bush is no Jimmy Carter.
'Why not come back to the anti-war position. After all, it was my position with Jane Fonda so I'll shed my hero image and go anti-war again. It's fun'
/sarcasm off
'Let me out of John's clutches! Haven't you noticed that I squint everytime he tries to kiss me! Ugh!
/sarcasm off
Whoops! You're right.
That was my favorite book growing up
(Can you tell?)
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.