Monday, November 15, 2004
Why Kerry Lost
By now, thousands upon thousands of words have been written by pundits -- professional and amateur -- and their respective brothers, sisters, cousins, grandparents, admirers, etc. ad nauseam. So I thought, "Why not add your two cents?"
O.K.:
John Kerry lost and George Bush won because, as someone once famously said, "You can't beat something with nothing." A quick Google search reveals that this idea is not in the least originalwith me. It also reveals that the phrase was used alot by commenters long before Election Day, in reference to Kerry's campaign. Well, the reason cliches become cliches is that they contain a nugget of truth. In Kerry's case, it was a truth that his campaign never recognized.
The bald facts are that Bush had new ideas, and Kerry had old ideas -- old ideas that had been tried before and failed. Bush had a record that he ran on, and Kerry had a record that he ran from -- how can someone who's been in the Senate for 20 years actually think that the voters cared more about his Vietnam experience 30 years ago?
Now, don't misunderstand -- I'm not saying that Bush's new ideas aren't controversial, or that everyone signed on to them (48% of the voters didn't) but at least they break out of the intellectual rut that politicians of all stripes seem inevitably to fall into. Examples: preemption doctrine; national tort reform; tax policy reform (as in, "simplify"); Social Security restructuring to keep it from devouring the national budget 30 years hence; tax exempt medical savings accounts.
By contrast, Kerry's ideas: renew alliances (that have arguably outlived their usefulness); trust in the UN (!); no tort reform (gotta keep those trial lawyers' political contributions coming); make the tax code more progressive (tax the "rich"); don't touch Social Security (kick the can down the road for our kids to work out -- ever see "S0ylent Green"?); government funded medical care (Hillarycare redux).
Like I said, old ideas.
Without going too deep into resumes, during the last 4 years or so Bush has been President of the United States, has had to deal with the economic fallout of the dot-com bubble that burst at the end of the Clinton administration, as well as the attacks of September 11, 2001. Whether or not you agree with his response, you must at least credit him for acting decisively in toppling the Taliban and ousting Saddam. However you think he's been conducting the war, you have to admit he didn't shrink from a difficult decision.
During the same period, John Kerry was a rather undistinguished member of the Senate, whose role was primarily being a kind of Mini-Me to Ted Kennedy. No committee chairmanships or leadership positions (even after 16 years), no major legislation sponsored. Being from Massachusetts, where being a Democratic candidate at the federal level is almost equivalent to being elected, John Kerry never had to defend his positions much, because almost everyone agreed with him (or is it that Kerry just blew in the wind and adopted all the positions that were popular in Massachusetts?) In fact, to discover anything really remarkable about Kerry, you have to go back to his days as a swift boat skipper in Vietnam. Perhaps that's why he emphasized that part of his resume during the campaign, instead of his more recent, um, exploits.
If there had not been a large minority of the voters who were vehemently anti-Bush, I think Kerry would have gotten maybe 30% of the vote. He just didn't inspire many people. The fact is that Kerry and the Democrats were banking on Bush hatred to win the election for them, along with a dependable credulity on the part of some percentage of voters in the middle. It wasn't enough. They basically ran against "something" with "not-something," and the voters in the middle weren't as credulous as they thought.
O.K.:
John Kerry lost and George Bush won because, as someone once famously said, "You can't beat something with nothing." A quick Google search reveals that this idea is not in the least originalwith me. It also reveals that the phrase was used alot by commenters long before Election Day, in reference to Kerry's campaign. Well, the reason cliches become cliches is that they contain a nugget of truth. In Kerry's case, it was a truth that his campaign never recognized.
The bald facts are that Bush had new ideas, and Kerry had old ideas -- old ideas that had been tried before and failed. Bush had a record that he ran on, and Kerry had a record that he ran from -- how can someone who's been in the Senate for 20 years actually think that the voters cared more about his Vietnam experience 30 years ago?
Now, don't misunderstand -- I'm not saying that Bush's new ideas aren't controversial, or that everyone signed on to them (48% of the voters didn't) but at least they break out of the intellectual rut that politicians of all stripes seem inevitably to fall into. Examples: preemption doctrine; national tort reform; tax policy reform (as in, "simplify"); Social Security restructuring to keep it from devouring the national budget 30 years hence; tax exempt medical savings accounts.
By contrast, Kerry's ideas: renew alliances (that have arguably outlived their usefulness); trust in the UN (!); no tort reform (gotta keep those trial lawyers' political contributions coming); make the tax code more progressive (tax the "rich"); don't touch Social Security (kick the can down the road for our kids to work out -- ever see "S0ylent Green"?); government funded medical care (Hillarycare redux).
Like I said, old ideas.
Without going too deep into resumes, during the last 4 years or so Bush has been President of the United States, has had to deal with the economic fallout of the dot-com bubble that burst at the end of the Clinton administration, as well as the attacks of September 11, 2001. Whether or not you agree with his response, you must at least credit him for acting decisively in toppling the Taliban and ousting Saddam. However you think he's been conducting the war, you have to admit he didn't shrink from a difficult decision.
During the same period, John Kerry was a rather undistinguished member of the Senate, whose role was primarily being a kind of Mini-Me to Ted Kennedy. No committee chairmanships or leadership positions (even after 16 years), no major legislation sponsored. Being from Massachusetts, where being a Democratic candidate at the federal level is almost equivalent to being elected, John Kerry never had to defend his positions much, because almost everyone agreed with him (or is it that Kerry just blew in the wind and adopted all the positions that were popular in Massachusetts?) In fact, to discover anything really remarkable about Kerry, you have to go back to his days as a swift boat skipper in Vietnam. Perhaps that's why he emphasized that part of his resume during the campaign, instead of his more recent, um, exploits.
If there had not been a large minority of the voters who were vehemently anti-Bush, I think Kerry would have gotten maybe 30% of the vote. He just didn't inspire many people. The fact is that Kerry and the Democrats were banking on Bush hatred to win the election for them, along with a dependable credulity on the part of some percentage of voters in the middle. It wasn't enough. They basically ran against "something" with "not-something," and the voters in the middle weren't as credulous as they thought.
Comments:
Post a Comment
