Passion works for Democrats
LEFT, RIGHT. Left, right. Left, right. Straddle. Reach to the left on health care. Tilt with the polls to the right on issues like reducing welfare and the federal deficit. But above all, be all things to all people whenever possible.
That political calculation worked for Bill Clinton, most notably in 1992 against George Bush, the elder. It worked for Clinton a second time, in 1996, although it really didn't take much in the way of strategy to defeat Bob Dole. Standing next to the aging Republican was sufficient.
Following in Clinton's political footsteps is tempting for Democrats. But it is not the way to beat George W. Bush in 2004. Nor is it the way to beat Howard Dean in the primaries, as Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry is finding out.
The Clinton technique worked for two reasons: Clinton and the time period in which the former Arkansas governor stepped into the national spotlight. The candidate was dramatic, the times and stakes less so. The economy was tracking upward, getting ready to take off and boom. The terrorist threat, while real, as evidenced by the first attack on the World Trade Center, did not grip a nation's psyche; it barely registered as an annoyance. Sept. 11 was a date, not a horrible memorial to death, destruction, and national vulnerability. Iraq was part of the Middle East mess. It wasn't this country's mess. US military involvement abroad afforded Americans a feeling of benign humanitarianism. It did not generate what is basically now the almost-daily executions of American soldiers, two-by-two-by-two.
In 2000, the younger Bush barely won election under a collective national presumption of continued peace and prosperity. Clinton's understudy, Al Gore, almost retraced his predecessor's triangulated path to the White House. By the barest of margins, by the electoral college, not the popular vote, Americans chose Bush, the flawed but human candidate, over Gore, the cardboard cut-out.
If Bush stood for something in 2000 -- compassionate conservatism? -- he stands for even more -- or is it less? -- at this point in his presidency. And that is his strength and weakness in 2004. On the weakness side, the people who voted for cardboard in 2000 rather than for Bush, are outraged by the absolute certainty of what Bush now represents. They seek a candidate who can put a face and voice to their outrage. The New York Times explained both political sides of this phenomenon in a page one Labor Day story, headlined, "Political Parties Shift Emphasis to Core Voters." Matthew Dowd, a senior adviser to Bush's reelection campaign, told the Times, "There's a realization, having looked at the past few elections, that the party that motivates their base -- that makes their base emotional and turn out -- has a much higher likelihood of success on Election Day."
That is exactly what Dean, the former governor of Vermont, is doing in this pre-primary season. And if he were to go on and win the Democratic presidential nomination, he would continue playing the role of dramatic emotional catalyst. To date, the Kerry campaign is all resume, no rationale, an eastern liberal version of what was said about Bush in 2000 -- all hat, no cattle. On its own, Kerry's status as a Vietnam War hero is not an incentive for primary voters. In fact, it makes it harder to understand his vote in favor of the resolution allowing Bush to go to war with Saddam Hussein.
Despite Kerry's blandness, the old school Democrats, burned by the politics of George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis, fear the emotional backlash a Dean-like candidate is certain to raise in a national campaign showdown with Bush. They long for a Clinton, a master of lip-biting coyness and equivocating charm, minus, of course, the personal baggage.
The exact combination is not apparent in the current crop of Democrats running for the nomination. There is no coyness in Dean, and while there is plenty of equivocating with Kerry, it is, so far, charmless and joyless. The candidates are not Clintonesque, but then again, neither are the times. The Bill Clinton era is over and someone should explain that to Terry McAuliffe, who heads the Democratic National Committee. No candidate is going to get elected president in 2004 talking about video chips. Three million jobs disappeared during the Bush administration. The United States waged war with Iraq but does not know how to wage peace in that country. Civil rights, affirmative action, and choice are under attack.
There is plenty to be angry about, but anger alone will not win the White House. For the Democrats, passion with purpose is necessary, in the primary season and beyond. Straddling is an exercise in political futility.
Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
