|
In '92, it was "The economy, stupid." In '88, Dukakis tried to frame the election in terms of competence; Bush Sr. redirected that to family values.
My major criticism of Kerry's recent campaign is that he hasn't presented an overriding vision of how people should decide who to vote for this November. Cheney, in his debate, did the best job this year of tying his points to a thematic argument: "Vote for us because..." Cheney argued that the war on terrorism is larger than just Osama Bin Ladin, and that the country needs a leader who doesn't take such a narrow view.
I'm not talking right now about the merits of that argument, but about the fact it's being made in the first place, while Kerry doesn't seem to have a comparable philosophy for his campaign. If he did, it would be a lot harder to paint him as a waffler.
I think one of the reasons Bush* holds up better in the polls than he does on his specific policies is that people see what he hopes to accomplish in remaking the world, even when experts agree that it's unrealistic. The result is that people see the forest in spite of the lack of trees. For example, people think of Bush as strong on military issues even though can't articulate why his larger goals required him to take the exact actions he's taken in Iraq.
In contrast to Kerry, Bill Clinton turned a similar election dynamic against Bush Sr. with a "full spectrum dominance" that hasn't been as visible from the Democrats this cycle. Clinton's policy arguments all tied back into a worldview based on compassion and empathy, and he sold us on the case that he cared about ordinary Americans more than the sitting President did.
I'd like to have seen Kerry make a more coherent argument to close the sale, in addition to winning on various point-by-point policy questions. There are still too many voters who think Kerry won the debate, who still intend to vote for Bush.
Kerry has the vision he needs, I just don't think he articulated it well enough. He has a vision of the world where America is well respected in addition to being feared. He thinks domestic policy is about more than just promises made in an election year. That government should help people in addition to helping corporations.
And yet somehow, his performances in the last two debates sounded like a disconnected series of battles on specific policies, however well fought and decisively won. What Kerry needed to do to put the election in the bag was to proclaim a different and better vision for the next four years - different and better than what we're likely to see if the electorate decides on more of the same.
|