As the American political spotlight focused on the Democratic National Convention in Boston this week, pundits concluded that Sen. John Kerry needed to make a masterful speech to convince a restless, interested, yet unconvinced American public that it was not only time to change horses, but that he was the man who could lead the nation out of malaise at home and disquiet abroad. For months, Kerry has been neck-and-neck in the polls with President Bush.
But much of Kerry’s support was attributable to the unpopularity of the president and his policies rather than enthusiasm toward the Democratic senator from Massachusetts. One can rightly conclude that while Bush’s negatives make his defeat more likely, in order to oust the president, Kerry himself needs to inspire voters. The “anyone but Bush” protest vote does not in itself beget a winner.
Kerry has been unable to gain traction because he lacks many of the ingredients needed in the modern media age. Mainly, the ability to simplify the complex, and in so doing connect with the average American. No one can make the case that Kerry is a man of the people like successful Democratic candidates of the past, such as Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia, or Bill Clinton of Hope, Arkansas. Kerry is, and comes across as, a wealthy patrician East Coast establishment candidate. He has been stigmatized by voters and political analysts alike for his brainy yet uninspiring persona, which unlike Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or to a lesser extent George W. Bush, does not attract voters on the human and emotional level. Kerry was cognizant of the lesson learned by Al Gore in 2000: American voters have difficulty voting for a candidate they do not like on a personal level, even if they agree with him on substantive political issues.
This past Thursday, in what was called the most important speech of his career, John Kerry wisely did not try to demonstrate that he is a populist man of the common people. Rather, he defined himself as a man who has enjoyed the fruits of privileged American society, but never forgetting that with opportunity comes responsibility. Kerry highlighted his service to the country in Vietnam and later in public office, reminding the American public of his deep commitment to the country and its noblest values, and desire to serve at a time when the US is at a crossroads in history.
Kerry, most analysts agreed, connected with voters like never before. And he did so not by focusing on the familiar Democratic Party themes of economic justice and social liberalism, but by attempting to reclaim Democratic hegemony over security, defense, and values — all issues trumpeted by and conceded to Republicans since Vietnam. Kerry also worked to counter Republican claims — used liberally in an unprecedented $90 million advertisement campaign this spring — that he is a traditional weak-kneed tax and spend liberal, indecisive on national security matters, and a calculating politician devoid of deep-seated values. In contrast to that unflattering portrait, Kerry stressed that he was a political moderate with the ability to unite Americans, understand complexities of issues, and able to lead on matters of defense and foreign policy.
Of course, Kerry did not forget to mention his commitment to core Democratic issues, such as health care, tax fairness, and environmental protection. And he could not resist scoring rhetorical points by noting the Bush administration’s failings in Iraq, questionable relations with oil companies and other big business, and selective application of the US Constitution. Nor did Kerry resist attacking America’s dependence upon foreign oil. All these points, collectively, made for an impressive and appealing speech. Without question, there are fewer doubts about who John Kerry is and what he stands for after the Democratic Convention. American voters are more likely to believe Kerry’s claims that he is a serious man for a serious time. Foreign observers should note that while he has sent mixed signals — especially to the Middle East — Kerry promises a multilateral approach. Kerry has needlessly singled out Saudi Arabia — a political punching bag this year — on the energy dependence issue, and has excessively worked to appease American Jewish voters. But his foreign policy advisors stress that he will work with regional leaders rather than dictate to them. Even Jimmy Carter, among others, emphasized Kerry’s commitment to the peace process.
Pre-convention polls showed little change in the electoral fortunes of either Bush or Kerry. Essentially, there has been little movement over the last six months, with both candidates hovering around 45 percent give or take 3 points. Averaging the seven most recent non-partisan national polls, Kerry leads narrowly, 47.1 percent-45.6 percent. In short, this is an exceptionally close race that will be decided in a select number of battleground states such as Ohio, Florida, and Missouri.
Early data suggests Kerry will gain a considerable post-convention boost in the polls, perhaps as much as 10 points. The most recent Zogby International poll, which was conducted throughout the week but before the Kerry speech, showed Kerry has taken a 48 percent-43 percent lead nationally, and in fact is leading in every region — including the Republican-dominated South — other than the Midwest. The convention boost, however, is not uncommon. After all, Michael Dukakis held a seemingly commanding 17-point post-convention lead over George H. W. Bush in 1988. However, given Kerry’s performance and proven political savvy, Bush has every reason to be worried, even though he should negate much if not all of the Kerry “convention bounce” when the Republicans hold their convention next month.
There are two ominous signs for President Bush. First, for months polls have shown that a growing number of Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. This leads to the second sign. A recent CBS News/New York Times Poll shows that Americans — by a margin 12 percent — believe the Democratic Party, “will do a better job of helping more people achieve the American dream.” The first polling trend begets the other because the federal government is entirely under Republican control. Not only is Bush the incumbent, but his party also controls the Senate and House of Representatives. Accordingly, if attitudes do not shift in the next three months, American voters are more likely to punish all Republicans at the polls.
Bush must hope that in the coming three months new economic statistics — which show a cool down and weakening consumer confidence — and the news from Iraq paint a more optimistic picture than what voters see today. Otherwise, his political fate will be identical to that of his father. A year ago, a majority of Americans, 51 percent, felt Bush deserved re-election, while only 28 percent wanted someone new. Today, only 42 percent think Bush deserves to be re-elected, and 51 percent want someone new.
This week Kerry did not assure himself of victory this fall, but he took a big step toward the White House by introducing himself to the American electorate not just as the anti-Bush, but as a man with an impressive resume and a vision, albeit thinly defined, of the future. It is a vision void of domestic division and where America is no longer an international bully.
— David Dumke serves as principal of the MidAmr Group, which works to improve US relations with the Arab world.
