CAMBRIDGE, Mass., 16 October 2004 — Ultimately the one who makes the American voters “feel good” is going to steal the presidency. This is American politics at “its simplest.” John Kerry may prove too complicated for them. The many attack themes put forward by Kerry’s supporters do not necessarily translate into political ammunition against the incumbent president: The Iraq war is securing US oil supplies and increasing corporate profit and not increasing security for Americans or reducing terrorism, it is not gaining currency; the Bush administration has misled the Republican Party into pursuit of US strategic goals in the most costly and disruptive way; with a staggering fiscal deficit Bush has violated an important tenet of Republicanism — fiscal responsibility. These themes have not “caught on.”
Meanwhile, the attack on Kerry from his opponents cuts more ice. For example, in call-in radio programs the reiterative anti-Kerry themes are many: “If you have a teenage daughter and you want her to go and get an abortion without your knowing, vote for Kerry; if you want to take the name of God from the pledge of allegiance; Kerry is insulting our allies, undermining our soldiers; Kerry has a 30-year record of wanting it both ways... people don’t know what he stands for”. So go the attacks.
Flamboyance, directness and clarity combined with some charisma make for an effective political communicator. However, Kerry the man whose legislative achievements “in such areas as acid-rain control, fisheries protection and foreign policy have resulted largely from patient behind-the-scenes diplomacy with members of both parties, and with little public controversy,” as the Washington Post put it, does not seem to have what it takes to be an effective political communicator.
Compared to Bush, Kerry is intellectually rigorous and sound, yet may appear boring to the average simple-minded American voter. Clearly his three dozen domestic policy councils, two dozen foreign policy groups, dozens of consultants, and many other casual advisers help him develop a sophisticated understanding of issues, but not better communication techniques. Bush by contrast seems to be doing well by his cowboy Texan-style communication.
Kerry moves in the “grays”, as his changing views and actions illustrate; his Vietnam experience was first engagement and then a strong critique. He has been changing even his election management teams. He’s on a third one now. Maybe these are strengths of a reflective mind but Kerry needed to become an effective communicator. His “Mr. Flip-Flop” image is growing. This hurts him politically. Can he lead in these times of great uncertainty, the voters must ask.
Kerry, with all his intellectual strengths, has been on the defensive. In public, he speaks tentatively. He explains more and asserts less. This is good teaching technique but a bad rule to follow in election campaigns. He comes across as tentative. As he defends himself against Bush’s attacks about his past actions and present claims on health care, tax cuts, social security benefits and abortion, Kerry becomes a “nailed down” candidate. If your opponent is forcing you to clarify, he has psychologically nailed you down. Kerry’s Vietnam engagement is being turned into a liability for him. For the average American, Kerry comes across as the tentative dissenter. On abortion, on the Iraq war, on defense spending he isn’t saying that is much different from the Bush message. Kerry’s criticism of the war has been muted. Unable to really stick his neck out on the Iraq war, he falls between two stools. As such, he is unlikely to attract fence-sitters.
President Bush is a straight forward, simple and direct communicator. Kerry is long-winded. His message is overloaded and replete with “ifs”, “buts” and “maybes”. Good for an informed discourse, not for an electioneering communication in which the “straight and simple” makes for the most piercing pitch.
In a country where rule of law exists, peoples’ basic material needs are generally met and the popular media doesn’t burden you with the mess your country’s foreign policy creates, even a minimal amount of self-critique can become mentally cumbersome. It can make the average voter walk away. In an increasingly chaotic and turbulent world, in much of which the US voters know their own country is involved, they want to hear a reassuring message. That all is well, that all will be well, that force is necessary to fight “evil”, that the US government is doing just that. Bush says just this. Barring a major upset, Bush is on a winning ticket.
— Nasim Zehra is a fellow of the Harvard University Asia Center.
