Today's Musical Selection: "Dazed and Confused" by Led Zeppelin
Hi, everybody! Today we turn our attention to the presidential election, which I understand is coming up sometime soon. On Saturday, I mentioned that I'd seen Kerry speaking effectively at the Black Caucus dinner. This prompted loyal reader Ensie to leave the following query:
If Kerry does learn to speak in the next few weeks, do you think there's any chance in hell he could win? We do have the debates coming up...
This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. As an avowed Kerry man, I've noticed the trend in the recent poll numbers with considerable concern. I'm especially concerned because he's been looking good out there lately. That may seem like an odd thing to worry about, but if Kerry's doing well and he's still not rising in the polls, what's left to do? You see the dilemma.
I was discussing this the other day with Papa Shaft. Papa's a right-leaning fellow politically, but he respects Kerry. He pointed out the bind Kerry's in on foreign policy: he has to appear strong enough to be seen as a safe alternative, but he has to present an actual alternative to the Bush Doctrine. This is an extremely thorny challenge.
Bush has a double advantage on foreign policy. First, his policy has the great advantage of clarity. Most voters have neither the time nor inclination to study foreign policy in detail, so they have just one simple question: "Will it keep us safe from the bad guys?" And Bush can confidently reply, "Hell yeah. I'm gonna blow the crap out of anyone who looks at us funny. Of course we'll get the bad guys." It sounds comforting and effective, if you don't bother to consider the long-term effects. Kerry, on the other hand, has to try to explain how he's going to decide when to attack and when not to, and it tends to sounds wishy-washy no matter how you explain it. Voters are afraid that, somewhere in the middle of rhetorical curlicues, the bad guys might get away. There's no such fear with Bush.
Second, Bush has the incumbent's advantage: He can demonstrate what he plans to do, while Kerry can only theorize. Even if you don't love what Bush is doing, at least you know what to expect. With Kerry, there's the uncertainty that comes with not seeing a plan in action. In dangerous times such as these, it's difficult to take that chance.
Of course, a challenger can only present a viable alternative if he can find a public voice. And I think that's been Kerry's biggest problem: he's having a hard time getting people to listen. At this time in 1992, Bill Clinton was all over the media. Bush the elder was perceived as distant and inaccessible, while Clinton had his finger on the pulse of everyone who was hurting. Bush the younger may not be exactly having a lovefest with the American public, but he is dominating the airwaves. And that's fatal to a challenger.
So to answer your question, Ensie, I do think Kerry's in fighting trim for the debates. I think he can beat Bush there. But he has to establish himself enough to get people to listen. The truth about the debates is that they're always the incumbent's to lose. Unless he's already reeling, or he makes a significant gaffe, the debates alone aren't going to lift a challenger to victory. Kerry has to get himself out there in front of the media, hitting key themes effectively and preventing Bush from monopolizing the airtime.
And the best way to get airtime is to convince the media that you're a viable challenger. I think the media are willing to listen to the case against Bush, but they don't seem to think that Kerry's a viable alternative. And time's running out for him to make his case.
Ensie had a couple other thoughts for me. One was about helping strangers:
Yes--we are far too afraid of things for our own good in this country. My parent used to pick up hitchikers (I remember sitting next to them in our car), but I would never pick one up now. Michael Moore excellently points out American's obsessions with being "safe" and how we are afraid of everything in Bowling for Columbine. I have a feeling we wouldn't see a dramatic increase in murders/assaults if we all started being more "helpful" to each other, but no one really wants to take the chance.
Sadly, I think Ensie's right. Statistics are a cold comfort at best, if you're the one who winds up getting mugged or killed. If the crime rate drops, but you personally get assaulted, you're not going to feel safer. It's like the old saw about the economy: a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, and a depression is when you lose yours. Tell someone it's one-in-a-million that something bad will happen when he helps a stranger and he'll reply that it's zero-in-a-million if he stays inside and doesn't help. And the cumulative effect of each of these individually rational decisions drains our reservoir of civic goodwill.
Of course, you have to beat some people over the head to realize that there is such a thing as "civic goodwill." With each passing year, we feel a little less sense of a common cause with the people around us. It frustrates and saddens me, because I think we're a much richer country when we come together, rather than skittering off into our little gated bunkers to live our atomized existences. But no one wants to be the first mover. Fear and avoidance is safer.
Also, Ensie remarked about my Wienermobile experience:
Oh my God! You got to ride in the Wienermobile! I am so jealous!
I'd have to say that it was one of the highlights of my life. I've forgotten most of the details of that trip, but that one stands out, as does the visit my dad and I paid to the Watkins Glen race track. The latter stands out because it's become a life lesson for our family.
Watkins Glen was not an official destination of the trip, but we happened to stop there one night, and being the car nut I was then, naturally I pestered my parents to take me to the track. Finally, Dad agreed to take me in the morning, while Mom and my sister were off antiquing. We drove up to the track, expecting to park and walk around the perimeter. But the gate to the complex was open, and we drove through to the infield. I looked around at the famous blue-and-white striped guardrail and imagined Darrell Waltrip and Mark Martin swapping paint in the turns. This was definitely cool!
Then Dad noticed that the gate to the track was open. We could, if we chose, drive out and take a lap around the track ourselves. Dad and I looked at each other, hesitated... and decided not to. Didn't want to cause trouble, I guess. So we drove away and back to the hotel.
Ever since, Dad and I have been kicking ourselves about it. If we'd driven out and taken a lap, we'd have had a story worth telling for the rest of our lives. Instead, all we have are regrets for the path not taken. Ever since then, we've had a policy that whenever a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity prevents itself, we don't quibble over details. We just do it!
The most memorable invocation of the policy occurred at my college graduation. Dad brought his photographic equipment (he's pretty serious about this stuff), and he thought it would be great to have a shot looking out from the stage over the assembled graduates. So he snuck up, stood behind the speaker and took the pictures. He was immediately ushered off the stage, and Mom went to find someplace quiet to die of embarrassment. But he just looked at me and said, "Watkins Glen," and I nodded and smiled. And I'm the only one who has a picture of my graduation from the stage. It's a very cool shot.
Speaking of Dad, I think the world should know that he's become so disenchanted with Esteban Loaiza that he now refers to him as "Lost Cause Loaiza." I like the poetry of it.
And that closes the book on me for today. See you tomorrow!
Posted by Fred at September 13, 2004 08:50 PM