Now that John Kerry has all but wrapped up the nomination, his campaign has begun the traditional post-primary clamor towards the center, hoping to starkly contrast Mr. Kerry to President Bush while simultaneously presenting the candidate as an appealing choice for moderate voters.
So far the Democratic machine has rolled along nicely regarding domestic issues such as healthcare and jobs, yet the hanging chad in Kerry’s presidential bid remains his elusive foreign policy. Nearly all of Mr. Kerry’s stump speeches to date focus on reviving economic prosperity with only vague criticisms of Mr. Bush’s “reckless” efforts abroad. This is ironic, since most analysts agree that Kerry ultimately won the support of his party through his foreign policy gravitas, which his fiercest opponents, notably Howard Dean and John Edwards, lacked.
Although the latest polling seems to illustrate that the economy will be the most important issue in November, these numbers are misleading. A president will be expected to perform in issues both domestic and abroad.
If the public sees real weakness in one area or another in the challenger, then the incumbent candidate has a powerful advantage.
A good campaign, as with any strategic venture, attempts to control the unforeseen and even if the winds of circumstance unfavorably shift, the good candidate will have prepared and will prevail.
John Kerry’s campaign should be asking itself hard questions: what if Osama Bin Laden is caught? What if North Korea agrees to cease its nuclear program? How can Kerry continue to present himself as a viable option regarding America’s safety in the wake of success for the administration?
Mr. Kerry must walk a tightly wound rope, showing his differences with President Bush while steering clear of the wimpishness typically associated with Democrats and which sunk Michael Dukakis, a fellow Mass. native in his own campaign against a Bush.
While Mr. Bush will be eager to paint John Kerry as a flip-flopping hypocrite, indecisive and without the fortitude necessary to lead the most powerful military on earth, Kerry should strike back, defending his policies as complex and nuanced rather than blindly aggressive.
He should steer clear of criticizing the war in Iraq itself. Recently he has remarked that Bush has created terrorists where there were none, an argument which carries little credence.
Sure, more Muslims might hate the Western world now, but does hatred alone drive a man to abandon his home, strap a bomb to himself, and jump into a group of soldiers?
I know plenty of people who viscerally hate President Bush, but as far as I can tell Mr. Bush’s bowels are still intact. After all, Kerry voted for the war resolution, which Bush will enthusiastically point out.
Instead, Kerry should concentrate on a diplomacy which would bring a more multi-national face to the new Iraq, noting that with less of a burden upon our own military we could devote more resources to fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. Kerry should also focus on Homeland Security, especially on the inadequate supply of funds which have been diverted from the protection of jets, ports and other focal points of domestic protection from terrorists.
Kerry has also been practicing his assertiveness, proving the tough guy image he is trying to lay out.
At UCLA in late February he said, in terms that would make Donald Rumsfield proud, that “the War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos.”
In promoting his diplomacy as well, Kerry must be careful to insist that America will not be tied to the whims of multi-national institutions which do not benefit our interests.
In all, foreign policy legitimacy will be a necessity in the upcoming election.
Word’s been out recently that Vietnam veteran and Senator John McCain is under consideration as a running mate, and he’s stated that he’d consider accepting the job. That’d be a good start.