Click here for info on the Print Journal (and to purchase your copy)!

Just 220 Days to Go: Is Kerry the Man?

By Mark Grueter

---------------------------------------

On November 2nd, 2004 American voters will choose between John Kerry and George W. Bush for President.*  We have a long way to go, so don’t believe anyone who affects insight as to who will win because it really will depend on a variety of factors yet to unfold. There are no overriding forces controlling the process; unpredictable events will decide it.

More importantly for now, we might reflect upon what has just happened. First off, on November 3rd, political junkies should have a clearer idea of whether or not there is any merit to the fashionable notion of “frontloading” the primary process. In both parties, prevailing logic compels leaders to set up or rig the primaries in order to ensure that a nominee is decided early on. Every four years since the 1970’s national party leaders persuade state party leaders to move their primary and caucus contests “up” in the calendar year/schedule. As an understood consequence of contests being moved up, states now also vote much closer together, and this dramatically impacts the results.

This effort is all done to avert party infighting reminiscent of the “bloodbaths” that took place within the Democratic Party in 1968, ’72 and even ’76. In ’72, for instance, George McGovern was not chosen as the nominee until June. Before ultimately orchestrating a remarkable comeback, he lost many states and was counted out by almost everyone, at every stage. But many Democrats believe a grueling primary process as such “divides” the party and weakens the nominee, hence the losses in the three years cited above. This is partly why we always hear today’s candidates’ talking to each other about how “we” should all be focused on getting rid of Bush instead of criticizing one another - as if both cannot be done simultaneously.

Which leads me to a certain point. This drive to decide a nominee long before most states vote is certainly antidemocratic and discriminatory: as I’ve written before, many states canceled their contests ahead of time, knowing full well the nominee would be decided before their scheduled election. And the trend gives a decided edge to big money and/or establishment candidates, as if they needed or deserved more favors.

But perhaps the more interesting question is this: Despite the obvious undemocratic aspect, if all that matters is beating the GOP, do party insiders have a point? If Democrats appear united and strong by early March with plenty of time to run a campaign against Republicans, do they have a greater chance of winning, as compared to a situation where they may have less time and may appear - gasp - divided? Maybe, but the whole concept should strike shrewd observers as much more complex, because doesn’t it all depend on circumstances?

And besides, there is a good argument to suggest that party leaders have it all backwards; that not only are they now staging a semi-closed and increasingly unfair process (which is, alone, sufficient grounds for opposition, by the way), but that they’re hurting their party and their nominee by doing so. This may be the case now, because Democrats, as a consequence of frontloading, may have just nominated the wrong guy. Kerry strikes me as solid, but many of us have the sense that Edwards is actually stronger. However, because Kerry won the first two contests, most Democratic voters just assumed that he would be the nominee, that there was no point of wasting their time seriously thinking about anyone else. And because all the primaries were bunched together, the domino effect took hold and most people didn’t take the time to reconsider.

Thirty years ago, voters and journalists had ample time to re-evaluate candidates. Primary contests were spread out over six months, allowing all candidates to campaign widely and vigorously in every state. Candidates were always given extra chances, and outsiders, like George McGovern, had a real shot at the nomination, not to mention the presidency. Losing one event didn’t mean so much because you always knew you could rally if you truly had the right stuff.

Today, it appears that two of the most obscure states in the country, Iowa and New Hampshire, pretty much decide who wins. This is retrogressive, if not insane, for several reasons, two of which I mention above. However, we should also ask, in choosing Kerry, did these two states pick the best candidate?

The truth is we’ll never know for sure who would have been better, but the simple fact that party leaders are unwilling to allow its voters to hash these questions out for themselves is troubling. If Kerry wins and goes on to become a great, liberal president, party leaders will say ‘see, I told you so.’ If he loses, skeptics like myself can say ‘see, if you hadn’t rigged the process the party would’ve been tougher and perhaps Edwards or someone else would have proved themselves the superior candidate, if only they had been given the chance.' At any rate, “better” is really a problematic word. Does it refer to who is more electable, who would be a more capable president, who would stay truer to core values and principles, or what?

We do know that Kerry has not yet been aggressively scrutinized and tested on the national level. He faced some adversity when Howard Dean was the presumptive nominee, but that was well before Iowa and New Hampshire voted, and no one beyond the junkies were paying attention then anyway. After that, Kerry never had to really engage his opponents because he was already on top. All he had to do was show up and stay “positive”. And an additional challenge for the losers of the first two contests was that any criticism of the frontrunner Kerry was portrayed as “negative” campaigning and that’s something, the pollsters now insist, that is invariably bad.

This growing undemocratic development is fantastic for the winner of Iowa and/or New Hampshire but impossible for those looking to breakthrough elsewhere. With the new frontloading trend, the American public is essentially being told to sacrifice the open and democratic elements of the primary process so that parties can get their shit together before challenging the other party. More precisely, party leaders are now doing, out in the open, what used to be done behind closed doors in, say, the early part of the 20th century: selecting the very candidates the voters are supposed to be choosing.

So we’re stuck with Kerry until November, at least. I think he’s stronger than Gore, largely because he seems more human, but is anyone out there actually excited about a John Kerry general election campaign? Is there any collective sense that we’re in for something new and promising? Somehow, I doubt it. Edwards is in many ways an “insider” himself, but at least he was fresh. He’d only been in the Senate for one term and always looked more energetic, certainly youthful, and more unpredictable than Kerry. We saw Edwards continually improve throughout the campaign, as he appeared more and more formidable. We have to remember that he’s fairly new to this: he was trial lawyer before entering politics in 1998, but this serves him well. With Kerry, who has been in politics and, before that, the military, his whole life, we know exactly what we’re getting and we know he’s reached his potential. And while most Democrats like him, there’s still no widespread enthusiasm for him.

And this is why Bush opponents should be worried.

* Okay yes, there will be numerous other candidates on the ballot, including Ralph Nader, who I totally support, but the realities of American politics tell us that at least 95% of votes will go to either Bush or Kerry.

---------------------------------------

Mark Grueter is a writer living in New York City.  He may be contacted at [email protected].

© 2004 Me Three