How Bush, Kerry are One and the Same
If national-security issues are driving the US presidential race - and they certainly are - then why is President George W Bush not doing worse than his numbers currently show? That is a question that deserves some explanation. A CNN-Gallup poll issued on Tuesday shows Bush holding a slight lead over John Kerry, the Democratic Party's nominee for the presidency - 48-46% - among registered voters. For a sitting president, that is not at all a comfortable lead. For the challenger, that lead is also problematic because Bush is likely to experience the "boost factor" stemming from the Republican National Convention that is currently in progress.
The security situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is worsening; however, the focus of presidential debate is not whether Bush misled the United States into invading Iraq - by harping on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, or that he should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the task of eradicating al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. Bush's misinformation about Iraq and his faux pas regarding Afghanistan have been taken as facts. Yet the voters don't seem to want to punish him. At least that is not the case when one looks at these numbers. Perhaps the fault lies with Kerry.
Kerry is a decorated hero of the Vietnam War. He made a calculated decision to run on that fact very early on for two reasons. First, in the post-September 11, 2001 environment, candidates' national-security credentials were expected to remain a major focus of public debate and attention. Second, the sudden departure of Howard Dean as the Democratic front-runner after losing in the Iowa caucuses underscored that voters were paying great attention to the electability variable before casting their ballots. In other words, a credible presidential candidate must have actual experience either in the government related to national-security issues or during a war. However, Kerry's emphasis on his credentials as a war hero also became a major focus of presidential debate - sort of an albatross - as a result of negative advertisements involving a group of Vietnam veterans, the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", who are questioning facts underlying Kerry's war medals.
Here is a great irony. Kerry went to Vietnam and risked his life, while Bush used his family connections and joined the Air National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. Bush never saw the face of a real battlefield, yet he continues to tout himself as a "war president". Kerry fought a war, but his record has become an issue of gutter politics. Just that difference between the two candidates is stark enough, but in the highly charged political environment nothing remains sacred, not even acts of valor carried out for the love of one's country. The entire outcome of this exercise of trivializing related to Kerry's war record is taking its toll on his lead. As much as people say they despise dirty politics, they continue to watch and pay attention to all its putrid details in the same manner as they watch a soap opera.
Then there is another related irony. In the months of July and August, a major brunt of presidential debate was on Kerry's Vietnam record and his activities as an anti-war activist on his return from Vietnam, while Iraq remained a highly unstable place. Ghosts of Vietnam captured the attention of the US public, while its young people were either dying or were facing the constant specter of death in Iraq. The Bush campaign succeeded in keeping the public attention off, at least temporarily, its own actions leading to the Iraq imbroglio.
One of the main reasons for a lack of focus on Iraq might have been the absence of a clear alternative regarding that besieged country. On the question of what's to be done about Iraq in the coming months, both candidates insist on staying committed. Kerry only tepidly identifies a different approach - his multilateralism, as opposed to Bush's unilateralism. But what happens if no major country wishes to commit its forces to Iraq? The chances of such a possibility are quite high, especially if insurgency remains at its present pace. Kerry knows he has no choice but to leave US forces committed in Iraq if he becomes president. So the American people see no difference between the two on that issue. They are right.
What about Afghanistan, the second major battlefield against transnational terrorism? Regarding this country as well, there is no significant difference between Kerry and Bush. Both wish to remain focused on capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. After that, both of them are likely to hand over Afghanistan to the United Nations, which does not exactly have a shining record of nation-building, especially in the absence of strong commitment by major powers. There are already suggestions in Washington that Afghanistan is ungovernable. Well, those who are aware of the history of that tormented country cannot argue against that. However, the US was fully aware of that fact all along. The question is why Washington is abuzz with such suggestions now. Whatever the real reasons, they don't point to prospects of a bright future from the potentials of America's lasting commitment. So it is possible that the American voters recognize the hopeless situation in Afghanistan and don't wish to penalize the sitting president for being ambiguous about the country.
The preceding are some of the reasons Kerry could not establish himself as a distinct and a different leader. But an additional factor should also be considered. The real problem with Kerry's candidacy is that he is a politician whose comfort zone has always been close to the center of a political spectrum. Consequently, he has gotten used to responding to his natural instincts, proclivities and impulses for moderation. In the post-September 11 era, such a politician cannot impress the voters, even when the record of the sitting president on the awesome issues of wars - to be precise, on the post-military campaign performance - in Iraq and Afghanistan is mediocre. The best Kerry seems to be offering to the voters right now is the Democratic Party's version of a mediocre presidential leadership. Why should the American voters defeat the sitting president with a mediocre record on national security and elect a senator who has thus far proved himself to be very much at home with playing it safe, remaining at the center, but never demonstrating courage as a politician to damn the torpedoes and moving full speed ahead on issues of national security?
It may still not be too late for Kerry to do just that, accentuate his bold measures, especially regarding Iraq. A 2-5% lead for Bush is entirely spurious; it might dissipate almost instantly, but only if Kerry can imminently articulate the difference between him and his opponent. What should be the specifics of his bold approach? Well, only Kerry can articulate that approach, if he is serious about convincing the voters that there is indeed a Kerry difference that should be in White House for the next four years, instead of George Bush.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst
The security situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is worsening; however, the focus of presidential debate is not whether Bush misled the United States into invading Iraq - by harping on the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, or that he should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the task of eradicating al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. Bush's misinformation about Iraq and his faux pas regarding Afghanistan have been taken as facts. Yet the voters don't seem to want to punish him. At least that is not the case when one looks at these numbers. Perhaps the fault lies with Kerry.
Kerry is a decorated hero of the Vietnam War. He made a calculated decision to run on that fact very early on for two reasons. First, in the post-September 11, 2001 environment, candidates' national-security credentials were expected to remain a major focus of public debate and attention. Second, the sudden departure of Howard Dean as the Democratic front-runner after losing in the Iowa caucuses underscored that voters were paying great attention to the electability variable before casting their ballots. In other words, a credible presidential candidate must have actual experience either in the government related to national-security issues or during a war. However, Kerry's emphasis on his credentials as a war hero also became a major focus of presidential debate - sort of an albatross - as a result of negative advertisements involving a group of Vietnam veterans, the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", who are questioning facts underlying Kerry's war medals.
Here is a great irony. Kerry went to Vietnam and risked his life, while Bush used his family connections and joined the Air National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. Bush never saw the face of a real battlefield, yet he continues to tout himself as a "war president". Kerry fought a war, but his record has become an issue of gutter politics. Just that difference between the two candidates is stark enough, but in the highly charged political environment nothing remains sacred, not even acts of valor carried out for the love of one's country. The entire outcome of this exercise of trivializing related to Kerry's war record is taking its toll on his lead. As much as people say they despise dirty politics, they continue to watch and pay attention to all its putrid details in the same manner as they watch a soap opera.
Then there is another related irony. In the months of July and August, a major brunt of presidential debate was on Kerry's Vietnam record and his activities as an anti-war activist on his return from Vietnam, while Iraq remained a highly unstable place. Ghosts of Vietnam captured the attention of the US public, while its young people were either dying or were facing the constant specter of death in Iraq. The Bush campaign succeeded in keeping the public attention off, at least temporarily, its own actions leading to the Iraq imbroglio.
One of the main reasons for a lack of focus on Iraq might have been the absence of a clear alternative regarding that besieged country. On the question of what's to be done about Iraq in the coming months, both candidates insist on staying committed. Kerry only tepidly identifies a different approach - his multilateralism, as opposed to Bush's unilateralism. But what happens if no major country wishes to commit its forces to Iraq? The chances of such a possibility are quite high, especially if insurgency remains at its present pace. Kerry knows he has no choice but to leave US forces committed in Iraq if he becomes president. So the American people see no difference between the two on that issue. They are right.
What about Afghanistan, the second major battlefield against transnational terrorism? Regarding this country as well, there is no significant difference between Kerry and Bush. Both wish to remain focused on capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. After that, both of them are likely to hand over Afghanistan to the United Nations, which does not exactly have a shining record of nation-building, especially in the absence of strong commitment by major powers. There are already suggestions in Washington that Afghanistan is ungovernable. Well, those who are aware of the history of that tormented country cannot argue against that. However, the US was fully aware of that fact all along. The question is why Washington is abuzz with such suggestions now. Whatever the real reasons, they don't point to prospects of a bright future from the potentials of America's lasting commitment. So it is possible that the American voters recognize the hopeless situation in Afghanistan and don't wish to penalize the sitting president for being ambiguous about the country.
The preceding are some of the reasons Kerry could not establish himself as a distinct and a different leader. But an additional factor should also be considered. The real problem with Kerry's candidacy is that he is a politician whose comfort zone has always been close to the center of a political spectrum. Consequently, he has gotten used to responding to his natural instincts, proclivities and impulses for moderation. In the post-September 11 era, such a politician cannot impress the voters, even when the record of the sitting president on the awesome issues of wars - to be precise, on the post-military campaign performance - in Iraq and Afghanistan is mediocre. The best Kerry seems to be offering to the voters right now is the Democratic Party's version of a mediocre presidential leadership. Why should the American voters defeat the sitting president with a mediocre record on national security and elect a senator who has thus far proved himself to be very much at home with playing it safe, remaining at the center, but never demonstrating courage as a politician to damn the torpedoes and moving full speed ahead on issues of national security?
It may still not be too late for Kerry to do just that, accentuate his bold measures, especially regarding Iraq. A 2-5% lead for Bush is entirely spurious; it might dissipate almost instantly, but only if Kerry can imminently articulate the difference between him and his opponent. What should be the specifics of his bold approach? Well, only Kerry can articulate that approach, if he is serious about convincing the voters that there is indeed a Kerry difference that should be in White House for the next four years, instead of George Bush.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst
posted by R7 | 9/03/2004 01:51:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home