Election 2004 Lessons Learned: John Kerry, why the long face?
George C. Landrith
11/29/04
The 2004 election results should have surprised no one. The race was not as close as many pundits suggested. Virtually every poll since mid-summer showed a majority of Americans supported President George W. Bush and distrusted Senator John Kerry. But surprising or not, this election taught a number of lessons – here are six of the most important.
I. Republicans win by highlighting differences – Democrats win by obscuring them
In today’s political world, Republicans win elections by highlighting differences between themselves and their opposition. In contrast, today’s Democrats win elections by obscuring and obfuscating the differences. Republicans are much more in line with mainstream America. Democrats are no longer a mainstream party. They have become the party of big-city liberals. Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s New York Times Best Selling book, A National Party No More, makes the point powerfully – the Democratic Party is no longer a mainstream national party. Thus, Republicans win by pointing out that they stand with the majority of hardworking, patriotic and religious Americans and that the Democrats generally stand elsewhere.
Conversely, because Democrats have become predominately a fringe party of big-city liberals, they win elections by obscuring the differences between themselves and Republicans in hopes that voters become confused and vote for them. The national Democratic Party reflexively supports big-government solutions, higher taxes, more regulation, more litigation, partial birth-abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. They oppose the Boy Scouts and any mention of God in public. They support radical and unaccountable judges who legislate from the bench and impose their extreme agenda on mainstream America. Outrageously, polls show that self-identified Democrats are inclined to blame the 9/11 attacks on clumsy American foreign policy, rather than on hateful and murderous terrorists.
I realize not all Democrats agree with their party’s radically liberal agenda, but moderate Democrats don’t have a voice in their own party. Democratic Senator Zell Miller is about as mainstream as anyone can be, but he does not represent the direction of his party. In fact, Zell Miller isn’t even welcome in his own party. Most of the Democratic leadership come from the radical left wing of the party – Terry McAullife, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. No moderates in this group – far from it – they are extreme liberals. Thus, to win support from mainstream Americans, they must obscure and obfuscate their extremist agendas.
In this election, George Bush was clear about his position on the issues. Voters knew precisely where he stood and where he intended to lead. In contrast, John Kerry was purposefully vague. The only thing Kerry was clear about was that he thought he should be president and could do a better job. But he provided scant specifics. Kerry talked a lot about having better “plans” without explaining the details. If you asked 100 voters what Kerry would do in Iraq, you’d get 100 different answers – everything from pulling the troops out as soon as possible to dramatically increasing our forces and finishing the job. This did not happen by accident. This was part of Kerry’s plan – to obscure and obfuscate his views in hopes voters would be led to believe that Kerry agrees with them – no matter what their position.
At his convention, Kerry had two messages about his position on terrorism. First, he would respond to, but not preemptively stop, terrorist attacks. He could not have been clearer on this point. Second, he said that he had defended America in his youth and he promised that he would defend America now. Again, he spoke clearly. His precise point was to send mixed-messages – to obscure and obfuscate.
The issue of abortion gives another clear example of Kerry’s strategy. During the debates, Kerry came right out and said he personally opposed abortion as an “article of faith,” but that he could not impose his view on others. For 20 years, Senator Kerry has voted to impose his personal views on America – for higher taxes, government run healthcare, out-of-control rogue judges, weak national defense, etc. Why is his position on abortion the only issue that Kerry is reluctant to impose on America? The answer is simple – Kerry was lying. Kerry voted six times to support the barbaric practice of late term partial birth abortion. The very purpose of Kerry’s well-rehearsed abortion answer was to imply that he shared America’s values. But it was a lie designed to blur and obscure the fact that Kerry’s position opposed the values of mainstream America.
On homosexual marriage, Kerry hid his true views from America. He tried to sound as much like Bush as possible. Based on his statements, many pundits argued that Bush and Kerry held essentially the same view. Yet, this was a lie and most Americans could intuitively sense it. Judges who share Kerry’s views created the homosexual marriage issue in Kerry’s home state of Massachusetts. Kerry has vociferously opposed moderate judicial nominees who believe the people and their elected representatives should decide such questions, not unelected and unaccountable judges. Interestingly, only a day after the election, we learned that Kerry opposed the initiatives that passed in eleven states defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Kerry lied about his views hoping to attract enough confused “values voters” to win the election.
It is a sadly cynical party that hopes to win by lying about and misrepresenting its views in hopes of confusing voters.
II. Character and values beat polish, style and botox
Another lesson of this election is that character and values beat polish, style and botox. Exit polls show that a decisive factor in this election was that Americans wanted a leader who shared their values. Kerry complained of innumerable problems, blamed Bush for each of them, and claimed to have a “plan” to fix everything. Kerry spoke with polish, style, and confidence – but without any evidence of values. On numerous issues – partial birth abortion, homosexual marriage, radical judges imposing their agendas – Americans came to the conclusion that John Kerry opposed their basic values.
Even banning the Pledge of Allegiance and attacking the Boy Scouts are essentially Democratic issues. Who appointed the judges that are banning the Pledge and the Boy Scouts? Democrats. Who spent the last four years opposing President Bush’s judicial nominees – judges who were selected precisely because they won’t legislate from the bench and attack the Pledge or the Boy Scouts? John Kerry and the Democrats.
Kerry won the love and support of a wide variety of nutty Hollywood stars who pitched filth and vulgarity while praising Kerry. To make matters worse, Kerry openly embraced them. Sharing the stage with Kerry at a fundraiser, Hollywood stars entertained attendees by liberally using the F-word, joking about women’s genitalia and calling President Bush a murdering thug and comparing him to Hitler. John Kerry thanked his Hollywood buddies and praised them for representing the “heart and soul” of America. This communicated loud and clear that Kerry and Edwards were the counterculture, anti-values ticket.
Bush acknowledged that Americans would not always agree with him on the issues, but that they would always know where he stood. He promised clarity and consistency. This resonated with Americans. In contrast, Kerry became known as the flip-flopper – the candidate who was on all sides of most issues.
Kerry tried to portray his flip-flopping as a sign of superior intelligence and his ability to see complexity. In other words, Kerry argued he was indecisive because he was smart. That Kerry made such a manifestly silly argument reveals he is no genius. Moreover, smart people can see complexity and cut through it to arrive at the right answer. John Kerry’s own campaign staff became frustrated with Kerry’s consistent inability to make up his mind. Complexity confuses those who are clueless and politically opportunistic. Confusion is not a sign of superior intelligence.
Kerry did himself no favor by changing his tune on key issues more frequently than a jukebox – it only reinforced the idea that he lacked values and a core set of beliefs that he would stand by. His opportunistic campaign was driven by whatever story was in the headlines – making it clear there was nothing in Kerry’s heart that he held dear. He just wanted to be president. Most Americans found this raw ambition further evidence of a lack of character.
At times, Kerry’s campaign essentially mocked the idea that values mattered and changed the subject to talk about the environment, healthcare or some other plan. Kerry seemed preoccupied with packaging – sounding good and looking good mattered most. It almost appeared that Kerry believed that botox treatments, a fake orange-glow tan, and carefully coifed hair were reasonable replacements for values and character – as if looking better obviated the need to be better. This election proved that slick talk and Hollywood looks were no replacement for the substance of values and trust.
III. Saying you have a plan is not the same as actually having one
During the presidential debates, John Kerry talked about having a “plan” more than forty times. Kerry had a plan to increase taxes, to get the French to join the coalition in Iraq, to install government run healthcare, to win the war in Iraq, to defeat terrorism, to reduce nuclear proliferation, to reduce the deficit, to protect Social Security, to reduce healthcare costs, to strengthen America’s military, to increase jobs, to reduce gasoline prices, etc.
But Kerry provided virtually no detail for any of his plans. He expected us to trust him that his plans were better and that they would work. In one case where the questioner forced him to give at least a little detail, Kerry’s plan was actually President Bush’s plan. But Kerry merely promised to do it better and faster without explaining how.
To make matters worse, Kerry’s litany of “plans” seemed to run counter to his established record. For example, Kerry said he had a plan to build and strengthen our alliances. But he ridiculed our most loyal allies – calling them “the coalition of the coerced and the bribed.” He insulted interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi – calling him a “puppet” and deriding his understanding of progress in Iraq.
Kerry said he would run a better and more effective war on terror. Yet Kerry also said many times that he would “respond” to attacks after-the-fact rather than preempt them. He also said he would treat terrorism as a “law-enforcement” issue rather than a military matter. He said he would increase the size of the U.S. military, yet Kerry consistently opposed Reagan’s military build up. He said he would lower gasoline prices, yet Kerry consistently supported policies that make energy more expensive. Kerry promised he would create more jobs, yet in the Senate, he consistently supported job-killing taxes and regulations and opposed legal reform.
Kerry portrayed himself as a man with a plan – or a man with forty plans. Kerry claimed to have a plan for every conceivable problem. But, he rarely described the details of his plans. He simply claimed to have one and we were supposed to trust him. Ultimately, a majority of voters lacked confidence in Kerry and in his ambiguous plans. Voters intuitively understood that saying you have a plan is not the same thing as actually having a plan.
IV. Love is more powerful than hate
John Kerry’s fundamental message was, “if you hate Bush, vote for me.” Everyday Kerry blamed the headlines on George W. Bush. Kerry even made up things to blame on Bush. For example, Kerry lied about the jobs and unemployment numbers to cast further blame on Bush – even though unemployment is lower than the average during Clinton’s presidency. He lied about the cost of the war in Iraq for the same reason. Kerry was playing to the Bush-haters.
Not surprisingly, there was an unusually high number of attacks on GOP headquarters throughout the country. We’ve now learned that a Democratic Congressman’s son slashed the tires of 30 vans rented by the GOP in Wisconsin on the eve of the election. The day before the election the Bush-Cheney sign in my yard was stolen and a dead deer was placed on my doorstep. Kerry did not explicitly call for the violence or the ugliness, but he did encourage and foment the hatred that motivated the violence and spitefulness.
Poll after poll showed that almost half of Kerry’s support came from people who hated Bush more than they liked Kerry. Kerry and his supporters fanned the flames of hatred with their charged rhetoric and steady attacks. Kerry blamed Bush for every conceivable problem and it was not enough to argue that Bush was wrong on the issues – Kerry contended that Bush was small-minded, arrogant, stupid, lazy, dishonest and willing to see Americans die simply out of stubbornness. Kerry argued that Bush was more than wrong – he was bad.
It is odd that Kerry did not run on his record. He had one. John Kerry had a 20-year record in the U.S. Senate and he served as Massachusetts’ Lt. Governor under Michael Dukakis. But Kerry chose not to run on his record. In fact, Kerry ran from his record and ran on a platform of Bush-bashing and Bush-hating.
In contrast, Bush’s supporters were overwhelmingly positive about George Bush. Even if they did not agree with everything he had done, they liked what he stood for. They viewed George Bush as a decent and principled man. They trusted his judgment and his intentions. When Bush was asked to take shots at Kerry about his questionable Vietnam record, Bush refused and added that Kerry served his country with honor. When Bush discussed Kerry’s weak Senate record, he did not challenge his patriotism, motives or character. Bush simply pointed out that a man who was consistently wrong on the issues the last twenty years couldn’t be trusted to get it right in the next four years.
While every voter group turned out in greater numbers on Election Day in 2004 than in 2000, those who loved (or liked) Bush showed up in much greater numbers. This election shows that it is simply not enough to hate your opponent or to blame him for every conceivable problem. You must provide a clear and compelling reason for the voters to support you. Kerry appealed to voters who hated Bush. But that’s not much of a message. And it is part of the reason Kerry lost.
V. Being cheered by America’s enemies and detractors is a bad idea
You know you’re running an incredibly negative and anti-American campaign when America’s enemies and detractors cheer your speeches and your successes. It is even worse when they essentially parrot your speeches as they threaten America with more violence or blame America for the world’s problems. Running such a campaign is not a good idea. It makes you look anti-American and like the ideological soul mates of America’s enemies and detractors. This only weakens your claim that you’ll be tough on the terrorists and that you’ll protect America regardless of international pressures.
America has always had enemies and detractors and there have always been those who threaten America and try to talk her down. But this is the first time that I can recall a major party candidate’s stump speeches being cheered and essentially quoted by America’s enemies and detractors. This is what happened to John Kerry. He became the champion of America-haters at home and abroad.
When the corrupt UN General Secretary Kofi Annan criticized America and called its actions illegal, he sounded jarringly similar to John Kerry on the stump. When Osama bin Laden sent a videotape threatening more violence on America just days before the election, his critiques of American policy sounded eerily familiar to the words of John Kerry and Michael Moore.
Americans don’t want to hear a corrupt UN leader bash America using the words and arguments of a presidential candidate. No patriotic American wants to hear Osama threaten America by borrowing lines from a presidential campaign or from his Hollywood cheerleaders. It is simply not a good strategy to become known as the candidate that Kofi Annan loves to quote or that Osama loves to cheer.
Kerry already had a long history of opposing America and supporting America’s enemies – Vietnam in the 1970s, Central America in the 1980s, and the Gulf War in the 1990s. Even during the first debate, Kerry seemed more concerned that America had nuclear weapons or might develop a new bunker buster bomb than he was that rogue nations are trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
Simply put, Kerry did not help himself by reminding voters virtually every day that he is a charter member of the “blame America first crowd.”
VI. Learn from your mistakes or you’ll repeat them again and again
As long as Democrats blame their election failures on not getting their message out, they will continue to lose. It is precisely because they did get their message out that the Democrats lost in 2004, 2002, and 2000.
In 2004, Democrats communicated to voters that the Democratic Party opposed mainstream American values and was insufficiently committed to America’s safety and security. This is why John Kerry, Tom Daschle and a host of other Democrats lost.
Now, some Democratic pundits say that the loss was not the fault of the message, but of the messenger. They say they must continue to promote liberalism, but do it more skillfully. They say John Kerry was too uppity, too aloof, too wonkish, too elitist, etc. All of that may be true, but none of this explains why Kerry and the Democrats lost. They lost because their message was ruinous and most Americans simply are not that liberal or counter-culture. Kerry and Daschle did their best to sugarcoat the message, but it still left a very nasty taste in the mouths of most Americans.
The Democrats lost because Kerry failed to prove he would vigorously defend America and that he shared America’s basic, mainstream values. He also failed to prove he could be trusted to lead America in challenging times. Daschle proved himself a committed partisan obstructionist. This wasn’t a winning message to present to American voters.
If the Democrats think that 2008 will be any different simply because they change the messenger, they will wake up again on the Wednesday after Election Day and feel deflated and depressed – again. They must change the message. Packaging is not the problem. The contents of the package are the problem. If Democrats continue mocking and rejecting mainstream America, and praising and embracing Hollywood’s values, they will continue to lose. If Democrats run another ultraliberal, anti-values candidate in 2008, like Hillary Clinton, they will lose again.
Two years ago, during the 2002 mid-term elections, the Republicans bucked an important historical trend. The party in power in the White House typically loses congressional seats during the mid-term election. However, in 2002, the Republicans gained seats in both the House and the Senate. In fact, Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, who led the bitter and partisan obstructionist effort against Bush, was demoted from Majority Leader to Minority Leader because his party fell into disfavor with the American public.
Rather than accepting the 2002 election results as a rejection of his obstructionist tactics, Daschle caustically blamed the historic loss on talk radio. He also defensively argued that the Democrats would have won if they had gotten their message out. At that time, I warned that if Daschle continued to ignore the obvious lessons of the 2002 election, he would likely receive an even more dramatic demotion. Evidently, Daschle did not learn a thing. Through 2003 and 2004, he continued and intensified his obstructionist ways. On November 2nd, Daschle was voted out of office by the people he represented for the last two decades. At this point, it doesn’t much matter whether Daschle finally learns the lessons of these elections. His public life appears to be over.
But if the rest of the Democratic Party wants to avoid Tom Daschle’s political end, it must stop telling itself that the message is right, but poorly communicated. The truth is the message is bad and very cleverly communicated. This explains both the electoral loses and that the elections have been far closer than they should have been given the ruinous nature of the message. Skilled presentation of a bad message has helped the Democratic Party avoid landslide loses. But skilled presentation of a bad message cannot bring lasting electoral victories because you cannot fool most of the people most of the time.
Perhaps Tom Daschle now gets it. If the rest of his party doesn’t grasp this truth, Election Day 2008 will be another tough day for Democrats.
###
Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. |
