The Fearful Voter

Now is the season of unsolicited advice. Every day, pundits tell John Kerry what he must do to right the course of his campaign and cruise toward victory. Morton Kondracke says Kerry must issue a clear declaration that he is willing to stay in Iraq until the United States prevails. Tim Russert notes that Kerry "has to get the emphasis back on the economy, back on the war on Iraq – make the war on Iraq different and distinguishable from the war on terror and make this campaign a referendum on George Bush." Washington Post reporter Dan Balz observes, "He has to focus his message on Iraq in a way he hasn't been able to . . .. He has to figure out a way to get this debate as much as he possibly can on domestic issues." Others offer helpful tips: push health care, bash Bush, produce a plan for cleaning up Bush's mess in Iraq (as if such a plan would be easy to craft).

I try to stay out of the consulting business. My position is that a worthy presidential candidate ought to be able to win without my help. But it is hard to avoid the low-grade panic seeping through anti-Bush circles. The Swift Vets' unsubstantiated but effective attacks on Kerry and the Republicans' successful convention (celebrating Bush as God's choice to lead a holy war against terrorists) have spooked Dems. They look with fear at the poll numbers – most of which are trending in favor of Bush – and they do not see (within the media coverage of the campaign) strong indications of a kick-ass Kerry campaign. And they justifiably fret and frantically toss out advice. I feel their pain.

But if I were inclined to hurl my own two cents at the Kerry campaign, I do not know what specific advice I would provide. It seems that his campaign and the Bush effort exist in alternate universes. Bush is pushing buttons, and Kerry is trying to score debating points. Saddled with a costly and no-end-in-sight war that he launched under false pretenses – and that most of the public has come to consider a mistake – Bush has made the strategic decision to hail this war as proof he is a strong and decisive leader who can be counted upon to take action (even misguided action!) to protect America. He is promoting fear – or the freedom from it. He is identifying himself and his personal attributes (swagger and all) with the security of the country. What could be a bigger or better message than vote for me and I will keep you safe? As psychologists at Stanford University recently noted after studying 7000 voters who participated in the 2000 election, fear was the number-one motivation for these voters. And that was before 9/11.

Kerry's retort to Bush (and note that it is more parry than thrust) is that W. was "wrong" to launch this war – and "wrong" to promote tax cuts for the rich, "wrong" to neglect the health care crisis, "wrong" to stand by while manufacturing jobs disappeared, "wrong" to do nothing to preserve the ban on assault weapons, "wrong" to let the situation in North Korea deteriorate before addressing it. Kerry is correct on policy grounds. But his critique lacks the psychological punch of Bush's vote-for-me-or-die argument. On one level, Kerry is saying that Bush's decisions have endangered the nation. But he sure ain't saying it on the level where Bush (and Dick Cheney) are playing.

The Democratic convention, with its emphasis on Kerry's Vietnam days, was an attempt to tie Kerry's back-story to the present and convince voters he has the chops to be commander-in-chief. At the time, the strategy seemed to work. But it ignored Kerry's years in the Senate (as a fighter for environmental policies, a champion of abortion rights, a foe of tax cuts tilted toward the rich, and a crusader against the illegal contra war, CIA misdeeds and sleazy international bankers supporting terrorists and drug-runners), and it did not spell out how Kerry's positive traits would lead to different policies and better outcomes in the war in Iraq and the so-called war on terrorism. When the Swift Vets unleashed their unfounded attack upon Kerry's Vietnam experience, he was left with little cover. Truth, unfortunately, was not a sufficient defense.