Were I inclined to offer Kerry advice on a winning message against Bush, I would simply state: Read William Saletan’s recent article in Slate. Then read it again:
Yesterday Kerry’s campaign responded to Bush’s ads by accusing the president of “unsteady leadership.” In the Democratic primaries, this accusation worked for Kerry, because liberals think Bush is a liar. But most voters don’t, for a good reason: It isn’t true. If Kerry makes the election a referendum on Bush’s honesty, Bush will win. . . .
How can Kerry persuade moderates to throw out Bush? By turning the president’s message against him. Bush is steady and principled. . . . The problem Bush has demonstrated in office is that he has no idea how to apply his principles in a changing world. He’s a big-picture guy who can’t do the job.
From foreign to economic to social policy, Bush’s record is a lesson in the limits and perils of conviction. He’s too confident to consult a map. He’s too strong to heed warnings and too steady to turn the wheel when the road bends. He’s too certain to admit error, even after plowing through ditches and telephone poles. He’s too preoccupied with principle to understand that principle isn’t enough. Watching the stars instead of the road, he has wrecked the budget and the war on terror. Now he’s heading for the Constitution. It’s time to pull him over and take away the keys.
I’m starting a four-part series on the War on Terror this weekend: as it stands today, and as it may be in the future. Part One deals with the Bush administration’s approach. (Lest you think I’ve given over to Bush-hatred, Part Two addresses Kerry’s almost indecipherable position(s) on the subject(s) — as well as his seeming inability, post-Vietnam, to act decisively in any respect.) And I pretty much to come the same conclusion as Mr. Saletan. The Bush administration’s primary foriegn policy sin has been that of angels (and devils): The sin of pride.
Or, as I put it in forthcoming Part I:
This has been the trait of the Bush administration. Grandiose plans. Fine words. Dire threats. The men of the West against the forces of Mordor. (And almost in those terms.) Well, that and a couple armored divisions gets you an Iraq on the brink of civil war.
It’s going to be an interesting election.
von
An unusual one. Amazing how big a compromiser or pragmatist Reagan looks in comparison, though he had that rep out of California.
Strong, decisive leaders that lead you over a cliff. Do a people prefer certainty? WWII comparisons (no Godwin, just the first tragedies that came to mind) aside, I guess Johnson comes to mind. Nixon? I would claim the Republican party was in serious denial and delusion in 1972. Argue away.
Hoover I think gets a bad rap, a manager who maybe did the best he knew. Coolidge was more this kind of confident leader, and his policies of laizzez fare (sorry) might be more to blame for the depression.
I think Bush is as dangerous a President as the Republic has ever seen.
Von wrote:
Great hyperbole except of course for the fact that it really isn’t true.
Wrecked the war on terror? Please, we’ve had two successful military campaigns, no major attacks since 9/11, Libya is giving up their WMD program (as will Iran), we’ve brought North Korea back to the table (an example of Bush changing course when one tactic didn’t work) with a multi-lateral agreement, and Iraq is on the verge of adopting a constitution rather than a “civil war.” I prefer that frankly to trying to buy off North Korea (which didn’t work), insulting our allies as Kerry and most of the Democratic challengers had done, and not funding our troops and reconstruction.
I do agree that Bush has not restrained spending, but you’re kidding yourself if you think Kerry’s any better particularly since he, unlike Bush, has forsworn any form of entitlement program reform (if you think the current deficits are bad) before the baby boom generation begins to retire and actually wanted higher levels of spending in a number of areas. Also Kerry by focusing on the “tax cuts for the wealthy” canard, seems to want to repeal only those part of the tax cuts which are actually what’s geared towards long-term economic growth.
Is it on trade? I know that Bush wrongly (as did Kerry BTW) supported steel tariffs but he also reversed them after the WTO ruling. He’s also been pushing for expanding more liberalized trade with Latin America and Africa whilst his opponent is still out NAFTA bashing and trying to demagogue outsourcing.
On social issues, where’s the beef? He says he supports a constitutional amendment to affirm what is already the law in fifty States while at the same time supporting civil unions. He opposes racial preferences (somewhat), proposes an amnesty for illegal aliens so long as they’re “guest workers,” nominates center-right judicial nominees with “well qualified” rankings from the center-left ABA, supports a ban on partial birth abortion but supports keeping abortion legal for cases of rape, incest and life of the mother; etc. all of which is pretty much the mainstream position on social issues.
I’m glad to see that you’re not pushing the “Bush is a liar” lie, even if only because you recognize that it won’t work (especially coming from John Kerry). But the “Bush is too strong, too principled, and too confident” line isn’t going to work either.
Great hyperbole except of course for the fact that it really isn’t true.
Thorley, those are Saletan’s words, not mine. I pass them along because I think Saletan’s right: the “Bush is incompetent” meme is a stronger dig at Bush than the “Bush is a liar” meme. You may disagree that either meme is correct.
My criticisms of the Bush Administration’s foreign policies is coming. It’s not exactly the same as Saletan, and I don’t think that Bush is necessarily as bad a manager as Saletan appears to.
Duly noted, the rest of my comments stand.
While I think Saletan is right to an extent, I don’t think that would make for a great campaign message given the public binary perception of “waffling” or not.
How about “Bush is an incompetent liar”?
I mean, both are perfectly true: Bush is a liar, and Bush is incompetent. And Bush does lie incompetently – the whole AWOL affair could have blown over if only Bush had realized from the start that it was better to admit that yes, blowing off his last two years of military service was one of the many things he’s not proud of.
Von, most liberals believe that Bush is dishonest, but not in the “Bush Lied People Died” mode. We understand it’s a little more complex than that, even if it does make a good slogan for the shock troops.
No, Bush is dishonest in that classical political mode: he is very good at lying to himself. In psychology, they call it delusional. If you consider delusion to be a state of basic honesty, then you are accepting a very post-modern view of the world. “It’s not a lie if you can convince yourself that it’s true.” Or, “there is no reality; there’s only our beliefs and perceptions.”
This kind of thing did huge harm to the left. It has started to do the same damage to the right, apparently, if you are willing to accept Bush as a fundamentally honest man. (Post modernism and the magical thinking of some fundamentalist religions have much in common: whether the ‘revealed truth’ comes from your own mind, or from a book written 2000-3000 years ago, it’s still a revealed truth, and fundamentally anti-rationalist.)