Every second weekend in September a portion of my street is blocked off so that a neighbourhood festival can take place. As I spent a leisurely Sunday amid the buskers, food stalls and midway rides, I did a double-take at one of the desks that had been set up on the streetcar tracks. A small banner announced that this was the local outpost of Democrats Abroad, an organization dedicated to rallying the American expatriate community to the cause of unseating President George W. Bush in November’s elections.

Not wanting to be drawn into a discussion over an election that I had no hope of influencing, I stepped back and assessed the sales pitch of the middle-aged woman who proudly displayed a button emblazoned with ‘Kerry-Edwards’ on her lapel.

I quickly surmised that she was not engaging her fellow expats, but rather any passer-by who wanted to stop and vent their spleen at the incumbent. To her credit, she tried to highlight John Kerry’s domestic agenda, asserting that the election would likely turn on the ‘bread and butter’ issues: social security, Medicare, jobs. But her efforts to portray Mr Kerry as anything but a patrician woodcarving reminiscent of failed presidential candidate Al Gore were lost on her audience. For the locals - at least those on whom I so brazenly eavesdropped - ‘Kerry-Edwards’ could easily have been replaced by ‘Anyone but Bush’.

I watched as she listened patiently to her neighbours, nodding sympathetically as the vitriol spewed forth. It occurred to me that these one-sided conversations were not helping her cause, which was not to convince others of Mr. Bush’s unfitness for office, but rather to explain how Mr. Kerry would unite a politically polarized country, reduce the yawning deficit, create jobs, fix social ills, defeat terrorism, and stabilize Iraq.

As if on cue the sun emerged from behind a cloud, and it dawned on me that as far as the latter two goals were concerned, she had no idea what to say. It wasn’t her fault. The senator from Massachusetts has been accused, with some justification, of fudging his stance on Iraq and the ‘war of terror’. To the frustration of his supporters, to the chagrin of his campaign staff (or maybe with their imperfect guidance), and to the delight of his Republican opponents he has criticized the war but then proclaimed that he would have voted in favour of it, regardless of whether Saddam Hussein had squirreled away weapons of mass destruction.   

Any politician as seasoned as Mr. Kerry knows that a presidential campaign is full of pitfalls. Gratuitous criticism of the administration is unlikely to bring the coveted ‘swing vote’ to the Democrats’ side in November. This crucial ten to fifteen per cent of the electorate is widely regarded to be the ace that will give Mr. Bush or his challenger the winning hand. Yet with only two candidates in the running and one month left in the campaign, it is vital that Mr. Kerry engage his (or his wife’s) business sense and practice some brand differentiation.

Recent polls have placed the two candidates virtually neck and neck. How then to distinguish one’s own platform from that of one’s rival? If, as some pundits claim, this election will be determined by Mr. Bush’s record on the wars against Iraq and al-Qaeda, any flip-flopping on domestic issues will not have the carry the political price that it may have in previous elections.

Foreign policy is another matter, and it is a pity that the campaign is taking place in a sandbox, with irrelevancies and non-sequiturs about the candidates’ military records (and whether they were exaggerated or falsified) displacing serious debate over serious issues. A good portion of the American electorate clearly would like to vote for Mr. Kerry. The trouble is that he has not given them much of a reason to do so at a time when they are feeling vulnerable to economic uncertainty at home and elusive enemies abroad. The former swift-boat captain has yet to prove that he has the vision to successfully pilot the good ship United States toward calmer waters.

Still, it is more than possible for Mr. Kerry to jump-start his creaking presidential bid by getting undecided voters to identify with his brand. In a speech last week to a friendly audience at New York University he may finally have turned a corner. While agreeing that Saddam Hussein was a regional threat, Mr. Kerry dropped the hammer on President Bush’s failure to secure broad international support for military action, and for not providing enough troops to garrison postwar Iraq. As a result, nation-wide strife and an indefinite delay in Iraq’s first national elections are considered to be real possibilities.

Was Kerry’s critique evidence of yet another flip-flop - a position running contrary to the one he staked out in March when he insisted that his support for war was genuine, albeit highly conditional? Is his ‘new’ stance one that that the Bushites could decisively exploit, alleging that their rival is a feckless ditherer? No doubt they will try. But this time the senator may have trumped them.

A careful read of Mr. Kerry’s speech suggests that he was cleverly criticizing the handling of the war and its aftermath without condemning the original decision to pick a fight. The man from Boston thundered that the man from Texas had “miscalculated and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking, and ha[d] made the achievement of our objective – a stable Iraq – far harder to achieve than it ever should have been.”

Note the reference to “a stable Iraq”. There is subtle bipartisanship in this statement. If both he and the president share a common objective, the election issue over which they are fighting is one of means rather than ends. And assuming their shared vision of a stable Iraq did not include Saddam Hussein at the helm, then the Democrat has not appreciably changed his position that Iraq is better off without the great dictator. The difference lies in the road Mr. Bush took to oust him, with Mr Kerry asserting that it is filled with landmines that have blown America’s credibility and security to pieces.

A good start, but Mr. Kerry should not consider this a giant step toward a new brand name. His electoral renaissance is still hobbled by his imperious demeanour which, in the eyes of lesser mortals, comes off as, well, demeaning.

On Iraq, mixed signals and superb blocking by Republican defensive ends have prevented Kerry from moving the ball down the field. The senator voted for military action, but then declined to support appropriations for post-conflict stabilization. He remains elusive on what credible alternatives he would offer to the war of attrition favoured by the Bush administration. He demands that the president use his speech to the United Nations to secure fresh troops from allies, then privately frets over what could happen if his own pleas for assistance were rebuffed. He speaks of a termination date to the US military presence in Iraq (four years). But having articulated his party’s goal for that country – stability – he risks contradicting himself yet again. Is it an end-state that he is committed to, or an end-date?

Mr. Kerry is articulate where the president is not, but like his opponent he can still muddle the message if he is not careful. He has some time left to polish both his personal image and his foreign policy platform before Americans go to the polls in November. A series of televised debates will afford him the opportunity to employ his formidable rhetorical skills, and rub salt into Republican wounds.

It shouldn’t be too difficult. He can survey the political cleavages caused by ‘compassionate conservatism’. He can point out the flawed assumptions that led the administration to under-estimate the need for additional troops (and allies) in post-war Iraq. He can argue that he and his fellow lawmakers were misled by the inaccuracy of pre-war intelligence. He can wreak political havoc by echoing what must surely be on Middle America’s mind: “How many casualties are we will willing to endure to secure another people’s freedom?”

After being stuck in neutral through the spring and summer, the Kerry campaign may finally be gaining traction. The senator is waking up to America’s yearning for a clear choice in November. But his opponent is shrewd, resilient, and has remained consistent in his message. Mr. Kerry must do more than fight a battle of subtle contrasts. 

David Rudd is the President and Executive Director of the CISS.

Copyright CISS 2004

PDF Version

Back to Commentary Index

Back To Home