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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
