Wednesday, July 7 2004: A TALE OF TWO JOHNS: The more I think about John Kerry's choice of John Edwards yesterday, the more I wonder if the Dems aren't in a bit of trouble.
First, consider what Kerry gains from picking Edwards: youth, enthusiasm, and a bit of sizzle (to use the Wall Street Journal's phrase). All important things for a campaign, to be sure, but nothing substantive.
Liberal pundits who favor the Edwards pick also argue that Kerry gains a surrogate who can "reconnect" with rural and working class voters in the Rust and Bible belts. Or as Bob Kuttner condescendingly put it in today's Boston Globe, Edwards will be able to "enlist culturally conservative, white, working class voters who may be gun-toting, abortion-hating, Arab-bashing, tub-thumping fundamentalists." And people wonder why Democrats ever lost touch with this constituency.
Edwards is a very likable guy and it's probably true that he will generate a connection - either real or imagined - with some rural and working class voters. Whether he can pass that connection with voters along to John Kerry is another matter altogether. In the end voters will still have to look up at the top of the ticket and pull the lever for an aloof, patrician New Englander as their choice to run the country.
The other thing Kerry assumes by picking John Edwards is his "Two Americas" message. Granted, it's a lot better than Kerry's brand of class warfare populism, and it will unburden Kerry from dealing with those overzealous speechwriters who keep forcing him to use the phrase "Benedict Arnold CEO's." Still, it's class warfare nonetheless and it's now going to be a central theme of the Kerry campaign.
Now match these gains from picking Edwards against the biggest issues in this election: Iraq and the economy, in that order. Both are improving, and that's bad news for any Democratic ticket, no matter who's on it.
But what Kerry's pick indicates to me most is that he still doesn't get it. The ghosts of 9/11 and national security are going to loom large in this election and by selecting Edwards, Kerry is essentially saying he thinks he's fine on the issue of national security. He isn't, and his 20-year voting record proves it.
Liberals are fawning over Kerry's for having the "courage" to pick someone as charismatic as Edwards as a tacit acknowledgment that Kerry recognizes his weakness as an aloof, stand-offish personality. And he is both of these things.
Kerry's true weakness, however, isn't so much his personality as it is his position on national security. There are indications he recognized this weakness as well (flirtations with McCain, Biden, Cohen, Clark, et al), but in the end Kerry decided likeability was more important than enhancing his credibility on national security.
Maybe this will end up being a smart political decision on Kerry's part. People do want to like their president. I happen to think it's a mistake, not only because it's a longshot to think John Edwards is going to have enough charisma for the both of them, but because after 9/11 people want a leader who's top priority is protecting the country. T. Bevan www.RealClearPolitics.com |
