Election 2004:
Decisive but Divisive
By Mowahid Hussain Shah
The 2004 US Presidential
elections centered around three key
issues: (1) the traditional campaign
issue of economy and employment; (2)
the festering issue of Iraq and “terrorism”;
and finally, (3) the upholding of traditional
American family values and faith, intersecting
with the much underestimated social
issue of the placement of gays, especially
gay marriages, in mainstream American
culture and society.
As expected,
Kerry did well on the economy issue.
On the issue of Iraq, where the more
likeable Bush was most vulnerable, Kerry
let him off the hook by only raising
it near the tail-end of the campaign.
This is where Kerry faltered in not
vividly presenting an alternative vision
to the Iraq conflict, which had disturbed
a majority of Americans into thinking
that the US is on the wrong track. Belatedly,
Kerry harped on the theme of “wrong
war, wrong place, wrong time”
but by then he had missed the bus. Kerry’s
cautious strategy also permitted Bush
to recast the Iraq issue as part of
the “war on terrorism” on
which Bush was able to appeal to post-9/11
fears of the average American voter.
Prominently among the social issues
was the wedge issue of gays, particularly
so in a period where the Christian right
was viewing America as becoming a bastion
of coarse, uncouth, and shameless behavior.
This was the base constituency of Bush,
which he skillfully energized by keeping
the social issue on the front burner.
Bush kept his core constituency intact
while adding to it the undecided swing
voters which Kerry could not carry.
At a time
of paranoia and fear, the Republican
Party portrayed itself as more consistent
and coherent in contrast to the ambiguity
of the Democratic Party which was depicted
as “flip-flopping” and vacillating,
with no Din-Iman. On the social front,
Kerry opened his flank by not taking
a clear and compelling position on gay
marriages which had been solemnized,
among other places, in San Francisco
and in his own home state of Massachusetts
to liberal applause. The pro-Democratic
gay lobby significantly miscalculated
and overreached, opening the doors for
a conservative backlash, which energized
and galvanized a major pro-Bush voter
turnout.
By stressing
values of family and faith, Bush showed
more clarity and direction than Kerry.
Then, too, on a personal level, Bush
came across as an everyday man who had
struggled to overcome his personal demons.
A reformed alcoholic - now a teetotaler
- and dyslexic, Bush credited his faith
as having given him the direction and
strength to surmount past personal difficulties.
Bush, on a personal level, was able
to connect with the average American
voter in a way Kerry could not. Many
Americans were uncomfortable with the
faint foreign aura of an effete French-speaking
Presidential candidate married to a
billionaire heiress of Portuguese background.
In my earlier Link article in mid-September,
I described Kerry as an inadequate candidate
who would lose.
The Democrats
lacked an overarching and consistently
compelling theme, and were bereft of
a moral appeal and call to arms and
a rallying point, all of which are necessary
to knock out an incumbent President.
In short, Kerry could not craft a winning
message. Here, the Democrats have to
do soul-searching instead of finger-pointing.
The Bush-Kerry
contest also mirrored the divide in
America between the urban areas where
the Democrats predominate, and the rural
areas where the Republicans hold sway.
It also highlighted that a majority
of Democrats live in the bicoastal “blue
states” as opposed to the socially
conservative middle America “red”
hinterland which votes Republican.
In the
year 2000, America - in Lieberman -
was not ready for a Jewish Vice President;
in 1984, in Geraldine Ferraro, it was
not ready for a woman Vice President;
in 2004, it was not ready to accept
gay marriages.
It was more a question of the Democrats
losing the election than the Republicans
winning it.
Emerging out of the 2004 elections are
the following factors which may prove
consequential in the near future:
n
Republicans’ monopoly on issues
of morality, putting the Democrats on
the backfoot; n Triumphalism in the
Bush administration and in the 109th
Congress, where Republicans will have
a robust majority, which would make
both susceptible to even more mistakes,
n
Backlash against liberal elitism;
n
A serious blow to Hilary Clinton’s
Presidential ambitions, whose own negativity
and liberal stance on social issues
will create even greater hurdles than
Kerry in appealing to the American heartland;
n
Republicans’ better grasp of strategy
and identification of those issues that
motivate Americans, particularly by
senior Bush adviser, the brilliant Karl
Rove, who was a college dropout from
the University of Utah;
n
Democrats’ own missteps,
slowness to respond and to seize the
day, which invited very effective attack
ads;
n
The support for Bush despite broad skepticism
about his job performance and policies;
n
Bush in his reelection got 59 million
votes while Clinton got 47 million in
1996;
n
Republican dominance in the church,
wealthy think-tanks, and right-wing
talk radio;
n
And finally, the fact that emotional
appeals can prove more potent than cold
logic.
Now, what next?
In the
past 30 years, the second terms of Presidents
have been marred: Nixon, through Watergate;
Reagan, through Iran-Contra; and Clinton,
through impeachment over Monica and
Paula Jones.
But Presidents
in their second terms have a great opportunity
to leave a statesman-like historical
imprint because there is less of an
electoral need to pander.
Bush’s
test would be if he demonstrates the
vision and values to rise above the
closed circle of his pro-Israeli neo-conservative
cabal and the right-wing evangelical
Christians to tackle the intractable
and core Palestinian question while,
at the same time, showing compassion
for the underclass in America.
And, then, there is the small matter
of Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq.
