July 25, 2004
ISOLATED, NUANCED, DULL, AND ANTI-AMERICAN:
Who is John Kerry?: A mystery man to most Americans, Mr Kerry offers them the chance of a respite, a pause to take a closer look at themselves (The Economist, Jul 22nd 2004)
[A]ccording to a poll for The Economist by YouGov, almost half of American voters say that they still have no idea of who he is or what he stands for.Next week, Democrats flock to his home town, Boston, for their party's convention with one overriding aim: to rescue their stealth candidate from his obscurity, define him more clearly and sell him to voters. It will not be easy.
Mr Kerry's politics are still undefined. Republicans say he is the Senate's most left-wing member, an archetypal “Massachusetts liberal”. Yet he has been close to the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's moderate, pro-business wing, for years. He has spent almost two decades in the Senate yet has no major items of legislation to his name: his time was spent investigating government abuses rather than making law.
His personality is ill-defined, too. Despite millions of dollars of biographic advertising, he does not connect with voters. He is an aloof Boston Brahmin. Other American aristocrats became successful politicians by reinventing themselves, some as an average Joe (George W. Bush), others as stars (John Kennedy), others as unapologetic sons of privilege (Teddy Roosevelt). Mr Kerry is none of these.
Even his friends and allies provide few clues to his personality. During his 19 years in the Senate, he has established few political friendships: he is close personally to John McCain, a fellow Vietnam vet, but their legislative records are far apart. His campaign team is neither a close-knit group of friends and advisers from his home state (like President Bush's), nor hired Washington hands (like Al Gore's when he ran for the presidency in 2000), nor a coterie of former advisers to ex-President Bill Clinton. Instead it consists of all three. They circle him like out-of-work actors round a casting director, wary of each other and greedy for his attention. By his friends, ye shall not know him. [...]
His stump speeches are eye-crossingly dull. [...]
For Mr Bush, America is always a force for good. The world, in his view, will benefit from the exercise of American power. At home, the country will thrive if entrepreneurial spirits are given free rein. The job of the president is to act on those principles. For Mr Kerry, the task is more downbeat and complex: to use the power of government to temper America's failings as well as to buttress its strengths.
It is not, in some ways, a compelling vision...
You can't win an election in America running against your country. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 25, 2004 11:28 PM
Nixon did.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 25, 2004 11:59 PMHarry: Don't think so. Nixon may have governed against his country, but didn't campaign against it. Silent Majority; Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion; et cetera. [BTW, loved your Punahou shot at Harvard]
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at July 26, 2004 1:38 AMNixon did not run against his country in '68, he ran against the Democrats social experimentation and liberal judicial activism that he blamed for increasing crime rates across the nation. In fact Nixon was really the first presidential candidate to elevate the issue of local (not-organized) crime and increasing crime rates, turning them into a national issue. Remember his campaign theme: "This time vote like your whole world depended on it."
Posted by: Robert Modean at July 26, 2004 1:57 AMHarry:
Nixon ran for the "silent majority." Humphrey was with the freaks in Chicago.
Posted by: oj at July 26, 2004 7:14 AMTo know him is to vote against him. The fact that almost nobody knows him, makes Kerry the frontrunner in this race.
Posted by: Peter at July 26, 2004 7:57 AM"It is not, in some ways, a compelling vision..."
That line is nominee for Understatement of the Year.
