Politically Speaking
By Juan Williams
Democrats' Calm Conceals Questions About Kerry
"The difficult truth is that Kerry is less a full-hearted choice for most Democrats than a fail-safe accommodation."
Web Extra March 4, 2004 -- In a little over six weeks, the Democratic Party has picked a candidate to continue the battle of the 2000 presidential election for the next eight months.
Not only are party leaders delighted with this swift resolution, but polls find rank-and-file Democrats are also satisfied with the choice of Sen. John Kerry. In fact, the party is so unified that Democrats tell pollsters they would have been happy if Sen. John Edwards, who finished a distant second to Kerry, had won the nomination.
But beneath the calm surface there is some powerful churning in Democratic waters. The difficult truth is that Kerry is less a full-hearted choice for most Democrats than a fail-safe accommodation. He does not appeal to Democrats who questioned President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. He voted for the war resolution.
He is not the choice for most of organized labor. The big industrial unions wanted nothing to do with Kerry at the start of the primary season. They have strongly opposed him for years, mostly because of his support of unfettered free trade. The unions representing teachers, government workers and service employees turned away from him, too. He voted for the Patriot Act, although he now says that it has been overdone. He has little or no record with black or Hispanic voters. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which halted the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. But he now says he is opposed to same-sex marriage.
The senator does have the most liberal voting record in the Senate for the past year, according to National Journal. That record is going to be the basis of early attacks against him by the Bush-Cheney campaign. They will paint him as a left-winger or -- to paraphrase Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour -- a "taller, thinner version of Teddy Kennedy."
But during the primary campaign even Kerry's fellow Democrats, Edwards and former Vermont governor Howard Dean, argued that Kerry's record was weak. Dean pointedly asked what Kerry had achieved in 18 years in the Senate. And Edwards asked if Kerry would be capable of creating change in the capital, given a record of not creating major new initiatives on education, health or any other area. Kerry's voting record has varied from moderate to liberal over the years, according to National Journal.
None of this slowed Kerry down. He won 27 of 30 primaries or caucuses. The lingering question: What did the Democrats buy? The immediate answer -- they have claimed as their champion a man with the ability to defeat President George W. Bush. At least, that is the answer voters in the Democratic nominating process gave to pollsters. No matter their race, their region of the country or their age, substantial numbers of Democrats surveyed in exit polls indicated that they voted for Kerry in the belief that he is capable of defeating the Republican incumbent.
So for most Democrats, the coming election all boils down to a sophisticated anger at President Bush. I say "sophisticated" because Democrats are exercising restraint in not going with the candidate who most clearly represents their discontent with Bush. If they had, that candidate -- Howard Dean -- would have been more than a passing infatuation. And Democrats are showing more discernment in not going with the candidate who speaks directly to issues of greatest concern to them -- John Edwards.
Instead, Democrats have decided that this campaign will be fought on the issue of war. The economy and health care may be the number one issues for Democrats, but with their votes for Kerry, they seem to be saying that this is a time of War on Terror and War in Iraq and War in Afghanistan. And the Democrats have settle on a candidate with a military record that dwarfs the president's military service.
The "sophisticated" Democrats also chose a candidate with long-standing Washington connections to the party's top political donors and lobbyists. That means he should be able to raise the money needed for a costly presidential contest with no federal spending limits. Their choice also has a solid track record of being a tough candidate, someone who can take a punch and punch back on his way to a strong finish.
But choosing Kerry also means that the issues that matter most to Democrats -- the economy, health, improving schools -- now rest in the hands of a candidate with an indistinct record on those very issues. They've bought the proverbial "pig in a poke."
On the other hand, I think most Democrats believe that Kerry is going to be more inclined to their way of thinking on the economy, health care and schools than President Bush. With that in mind, they made a deal. They are putting their trust in a Democrat they don't know -- but one they believe has got to be better than the Republican they know, thought they had beaten in 2000 and still dislike. |
