Why is John Kerry struggling?
I had dinner with a very intelligent liberal buddy last week and we discussed my view that this presidential election is a referendum on the future purpose of American (and perhaps world) foreign policy. He disagreed because he thought that Kerry’s view of foreign policy was now the same as Bush and Kerry was now reluctantly forced to carry through on Bush’s war. We also discussed the notion that since 9/11, Bush had gone 180 degrees from when he entered office to decide that nation-building was now the proper course. My friend said that his problem with Bush was that as a nation we never had the debate about whether we should shift course like that or not, what the cost of such a decision would be and what would be the opportunity cost of embarking on such a course of action.
But my friend’s first point was disproved on Monday, when at a speech in New York, Kerry stated in clear language that his goal is not democracy but stability. The article notes:
At the time, people discussed the prospect, and ultimately a majority of the nation supported the war (and at least a plurality still does). I don’t recall the exact poll numbers at the time, but the numbers that stick out in my mind are something along the lines of 60-40 in favor. While 40% is a significant minority (although not, as one genius I heard on a morning talk show said, a majority of the nation), where I come from, elections that end in a 60-40 vote are described with terms like “landslide” and “mandate”. At the time, with public sentiment firmly behind the war, the Democrats did not manage to convince the nation the war was wrong. Congress had the opportunity at that time to debate our new foreign policy and the potential costs of the war in the context of the Bush Doctrine. By not doing so at the time, they essentially accepted that the goal of establishing Democracy throughout the Middle East (what I will term the “Purpose” of the war) was worth whatever the cost. Perhaps they did not understand the president’s intent and perhaps they did not take him seriously, but either way, it is not his fault the debate was not had at the time. To the extent there were people who did raise these points, the public just shrugged, in which case the public decided at the time that the goal was worth whatever the cost.
The point is that like the outcome or not, public opinion has by now effectively obviated the debate about the purpose of the war. This view can be easily substantiated by the bounce in Bush’s ratings since he clarified his message at the RNC. That being said, the president is still vulnerable on how he is managing the war (what I will term the “Process” of the war). Costs keep going up and are not yet showing signs of slowing down and we are still struggling to keep the insurgents in check.
But this is where Kerry is completely whiffing. He is not having a debate about the PROCESS of the war; as the above quote shows, he is still arguing about the PURPOSE of the war, which the country for the most part seems to have accepted. While voters may be willing to elect someone who will change the process, they have not yet shown a willingness to change the purpose. Since Kerry is defining himself as being against the purpose, his position on the process ultimately cannot matter to those who support the purpose. The only way to effectively win the Process argument is to state definitively that the purpose of the war was correct; a candidate who states this then has the credibility to say, “But this is what I would do differently and how I would manage to keep costs down…”
Kerry is arguing that both the process is wrong and the purpose is wrong and he is not offering any concrete alternative solutions. If Kerry were to now go back to supporting the purpose, he would be subject to yet more “flip-flopping” criticism. So the debate about the Process has not happened meaningfully (and will not), because no one believes that Kerry only wants to change the process without changing the purpose. And the public has already sided with Bush on the Purpose.
Kerry is also shooting himself in the foot (not completely meant as a smart-ass reference to his Purple Hearts) by focusing his proposed management of the war on the question of how to get our troops out instead of how to win (however he wants to define that). To me, that shows a leader who either a) is not committed to winning the war; or b) does not think we can. Is either attribute a good quality for a job as Commander-in-Chief? Please note that this is not meant as a dig at Kerry’s patriotism. I have no doubt that he loves this country. I just don’t think his statements on this issue demonstrate the leadership ability, strength of purpose and ability to inspire confidence that are necessary for success in the job for which he is applying. Therefore, we cannot hire him.
The other effect of Kerry struggling to define himself on the war and foreign policy is that he is making the whole campaign about Bush’s greatest strength (and his least clearly defined issue) instead of discussing domestic issues that he really wants to highlight as the difference between him and Bush. As a result, he and his message are flailing around like two teenagers having sex for the first time (“Yes! No. Wait. Not there. Ok. Can you please shift your weight a bit? OUCH! Move. Wait. Stop and breathe. Ok, let’s try this again. What if I do this? No! Ok. Sorry. Stop. To the left. No, MY left…”)
What the Dems really need is a candidate that supported the war all along and could clearly state that the war was a good idea, fought for the right reasons. Doing so would mean the candidates were on equal footing on the Purpose of the war and the Democratic candidate could then debate on his own turf about health care, the economy, trade, etc., as well as how to better manage the Process of the war. (This actually is similar to the strategy that Clinton employed when running for reelection in 1996; he co-opted every issue that Bob Dole raised, got Congress to legislate it, and signed it into law (think Welfare reform). As a result, Dole had nothing left to campaign on.) The Democrats had an opportunity here and they blew it because the Deaniacs refused to let the moderates (or “the Republican wing of the Democratic party”) openly voice support for the war.
If the Democrats had nominated Joe Lieberman (or possibly Dick Gephardt), I believe they probably would be ahead in most polls and about to win the election. But those candidates were not deemed “electable”. Dennis Kucinich made the point elegantly during the primary debates when he said, “I’m electable if you vote for me.” Had the Democrats put up a candidate of substance instead of someone whose defining characteristics were that he is popular and he is a veteran, they might have had a candidate who was truly electable because people would want to vote for him.
I’m not going to predict the outcome of the election today (anything can happen over the next 6 weeks), but Kerry is in dire straits and it’s a group effort that put him there.
But my friend’s first point was disproved on Monday, when at a speech in New York, Kerry stated in clear language that his goal is not democracy but stability. The article notes:
"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place inNow while I disagree with the sentiment, it is a topic that reasonable people can debate. But I take issue with the statement that the nation never got a chance to debate this change in foreign policy and its implications. Bush said in his January 2002 State of the Union (the "axis of evil" speech) as well as subsequent speeches that we were going to be fighting to liberate the world from totalitarian regimes. He noted this war was going to take a very long time and that the battles we lose would be much more publicized, but much less significant than the ones we would win. He noted it would be a mix of conventional warfare and improved intelligence operations and diplomatic efforts. He noted that Afghanistan was only the first step on this path but not the last.
hell," Kerry said. "But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The
satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a
dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."
At the time, people discussed the prospect, and ultimately a majority of the nation supported the war (and at least a plurality still does). I don’t recall the exact poll numbers at the time, but the numbers that stick out in my mind are something along the lines of 60-40 in favor. While 40% is a significant minority (although not, as one genius I heard on a morning talk show said, a majority of the nation), where I come from, elections that end in a 60-40 vote are described with terms like “landslide” and “mandate”. At the time, with public sentiment firmly behind the war, the Democrats did not manage to convince the nation the war was wrong. Congress had the opportunity at that time to debate our new foreign policy and the potential costs of the war in the context of the Bush Doctrine. By not doing so at the time, they essentially accepted that the goal of establishing Democracy throughout the Middle East (what I will term the “Purpose” of the war) was worth whatever the cost. Perhaps they did not understand the president’s intent and perhaps they did not take him seriously, but either way, it is not his fault the debate was not had at the time. To the extent there were people who did raise these points, the public just shrugged, in which case the public decided at the time that the goal was worth whatever the cost.
The point is that like the outcome or not, public opinion has by now effectively obviated the debate about the purpose of the war. This view can be easily substantiated by the bounce in Bush’s ratings since he clarified his message at the RNC. That being said, the president is still vulnerable on how he is managing the war (what I will term the “Process” of the war). Costs keep going up and are not yet showing signs of slowing down and we are still struggling to keep the insurgents in check.
But this is where Kerry is completely whiffing. He is not having a debate about the PROCESS of the war; as the above quote shows, he is still arguing about the PURPOSE of the war, which the country for the most part seems to have accepted. While voters may be willing to elect someone who will change the process, they have not yet shown a willingness to change the purpose. Since Kerry is defining himself as being against the purpose, his position on the process ultimately cannot matter to those who support the purpose. The only way to effectively win the Process argument is to state definitively that the purpose of the war was correct; a candidate who states this then has the credibility to say, “But this is what I would do differently and how I would manage to keep costs down…”
Kerry is arguing that both the process is wrong and the purpose is wrong and he is not offering any concrete alternative solutions. If Kerry were to now go back to supporting the purpose, he would be subject to yet more “flip-flopping” criticism. So the debate about the Process has not happened meaningfully (and will not), because no one believes that Kerry only wants to change the process without changing the purpose. And the public has already sided with Bush on the Purpose.
Kerry is also shooting himself in the foot (not completely meant as a smart-ass reference to his Purple Hearts) by focusing his proposed management of the war on the question of how to get our troops out instead of how to win (however he wants to define that). To me, that shows a leader who either a) is not committed to winning the war; or b) does not think we can. Is either attribute a good quality for a job as Commander-in-Chief? Please note that this is not meant as a dig at Kerry’s patriotism. I have no doubt that he loves this country. I just don’t think his statements on this issue demonstrate the leadership ability, strength of purpose and ability to inspire confidence that are necessary for success in the job for which he is applying. Therefore, we cannot hire him.
The other effect of Kerry struggling to define himself on the war and foreign policy is that he is making the whole campaign about Bush’s greatest strength (and his least clearly defined issue) instead of discussing domestic issues that he really wants to highlight as the difference between him and Bush. As a result, he and his message are flailing around like two teenagers having sex for the first time (“Yes! No. Wait. Not there. Ok. Can you please shift your weight a bit? OUCH! Move. Wait. Stop and breathe. Ok, let’s try this again. What if I do this? No! Ok. Sorry. Stop. To the left. No, MY left…”)
What the Dems really need is a candidate that supported the war all along and could clearly state that the war was a good idea, fought for the right reasons. Doing so would mean the candidates were on equal footing on the Purpose of the war and the Democratic candidate could then debate on his own turf about health care, the economy, trade, etc., as well as how to better manage the Process of the war. (This actually is similar to the strategy that Clinton employed when running for reelection in 1996; he co-opted every issue that Bob Dole raised, got Congress to legislate it, and signed it into law (think Welfare reform). As a result, Dole had nothing left to campaign on.) The Democrats had an opportunity here and they blew it because the Deaniacs refused to let the moderates (or “the Republican wing of the Democratic party”) openly voice support for the war.
If the Democrats had nominated Joe Lieberman (or possibly Dick Gephardt), I believe they probably would be ahead in most polls and about to win the election. But those candidates were not deemed “electable”. Dennis Kucinich made the point elegantly during the primary debates when he said, “I’m electable if you vote for me.” Had the Democrats put up a candidate of substance instead of someone whose defining characteristics were that he is popular and he is a veteran, they might have had a candidate who was truly electable because people would want to vote for him.
I’m not going to predict the outcome of the election today (anything can happen over the next 6 weeks), but Kerry is in dire straits and it’s a group effort that put him there.
posted by Bronco Buddha at 1:30 AM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home