WASHINGTON — I think I have just endured the toughest election
of my life. With the constant anti-Bush barrage of the last
year-plus, it has been difficult to keep my spirits up and stay
optimistic. It was hard insisting to so many friends that I thought
Bush would win, often when I didn’t feel certain about it
myself.
By Saturday, probably due to a bit of exhaustion, the “missing
explosives” story, and some bad opinion polls that day, I was on
the verge of predicting a Kerry win in my electoral college
article. I called a friend of mine, Mark, to convey my dismay and
luckily he tried to persuade me otherwise. He noted that the news
had become “all-Osama tape, all the time,” and that more of the
electoral-college battle was taking place on Kerry’s turf than
Bush’s. After thinking about it all day, a good night’s rest, and
slightly better polls the next two days, by Monday afternoon I felt
fairly optimistic about a Bush win when I finished my article. On
Tuesday I felt so confident that the roles were reversed: I was
dismissive of the exit polls and had to talk my rather worried
friend out of putting much stock in them.
The question to answer isn’t so much why Bush won, but why Kerry
lost. The exit polls did show that the “values” question rated very
high with a lot of voters, proof that Bush ran a smart campaign.
Yet values issues might not have been enough to win it for Bush if
the Democrats had been tougher on national security.
Despite running a strong campaign, Bush was vulnerable,
especially on Iraq. If we look at the CNN exit polls for the
crucial states of Florida and Ohio, 17% and 13% respectively cited
the Iraq War as their most important issue. Kerry mopped up those
voters, receiving over 70% of their votes in both states. But Kerry
probably wasn’t plowing much fertile swing-voter ground on the Iraq
issue. Most of those voters were probably solid anti-war
Democrats.
No, swing voters were more likely concerned with the War on
Terror, and here Kerry never came close to sealing the deal. In
Florida and Ohio, 24% and 17% respectively picked terrorism as the
most important issue. Bush swept those voters, getting 87% of them
in Florida and 90% in Ohio. Voters seemed to be saying, “I’m not
happy with Bush on Iraq, but what would John Kerry do differently
to fight terrorism?” Kerry never had a serious answer.
Instead, Kerry gave us Clinton-style triangulation on terrorism.
He wanted to stay the course in Iraq, but persuade France and
Germany top join us there so we could pull out our troops in four
years. He criticized Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq,
then proposed boosting the military by 40,000 soldiers, none of
whom would be sent to Iraq. It was clumsy and unconvincing because
none of it ever committed to serious use of force.
YET THE PROBLEM for the Democrats went deeper than the candidate,
all the way down to the base. Even king triangulator Bill Clinton
might find it impossible to triangulate on national security
issues. While the Democratic base is willing to compromise on such
issues as welfare reform or affirmative action, it seems
intractable on matters of war. A big portion of the base sees every
military endeavor as “another Vietnam.” Thus, any proposal that
includes saber rattling runs a huge risk of alienating them.
It is this attitude that led to the rise of raving anti-war
candidate Howard Dean. As it became clear to the Democratic base
that Dean’s personality would take the party over a cliff, they
quickly looked around for a palatable alternative. They decided on
John Kerry because he had been willing to vote against the $87
billion to fund the troops in Iraq and was stepping up his
criticism of the war. He had the added benefit of being a Vietnam
Veteran, which seemed to them an answer to the charge that
Democrats are weak on national security. Indeed, the Democratic
base seemed to be opting for a non sequitur: you can trust
us to be tough on national security because our nominee served in
Vietnam.
Kerry, of course, was all too happy to oblige. He and his
minions used his Vietnam vet status to answer all questions about
his national security policy, even going so far as to wax indignant
about how Republicans were attacking his service every time they
challenged him on foreign policy issues. It wore thin with the
public pretty quick, who wanted to know what, exactly, Kerry would
do to keep them safe from terrorism. Kerry never had a compelling
answer.
Two Democrats who might have had an answer were Dick Gephardt
and Joe Lieberman. Neither wavered in his support of the War in
Iraq, and both were gone early in the primaries. The anti-war mania
had so infected the Democrats that Al Gore committed one of the
most despicable acts of political betrayal by jettisoning his
former running mate in favor of endorsing Dean.
The lesson of 2004 is that until the Democrats are ready to grow
up and face the realities of national security — until they are
ready to accept that sometimes defending our national security
means we have to use force — they are going to have trouble at the
polls as long as terrorism is an issue. The question should be not
about whether we use force, but when and how? Since the Democratic
base is still debating the first question, Kerry was unable to make
any inroads into the second.
No, the Democrats are not serious about national security, and
they show no signs of becoming so anytime soon (unless, of course,
as Andrew Sullivan suggests we force it upon them by voting their
candidate into the White House.) The Democrats will have a very
difficult time taking back the presidency unless they are willing
to nominate a legitimate hawk. From all indications they are a long
way from doing that.
