Style versus substance
George W. Bush, ahead in the polls, could get by in the first debate just by not losing. John Kerry had to change the momentum of the campaign. Bush had the advantage in that virtually all of his supporters agree with him on terrorism, while 1 of every 3 Kerry voters disagrees with him. How far did each succeed? If Bush won on substance, Kerry prevailed on style. That's why many TV viewers thought Kerry won, while many radio listeners thought Bush won. The visuals, the drama, the body language seemed to help Kerry more than they helped Bush. The cutaway shots to Bush especially were not helpful because he looked irritated. Kerry was direct, articulate, lucid, and forceful, demonstrating a command of the facts and even adding fresh elements to the debate, such as nuclear proliferation. He passed the gravitas test all challengers must to be credible as president.
President Bush came through best when he passionately reiterated his moral clarity and commitment to persevering in his war on terrorism in Iraq until victory--a point that resonates with the American public. By contrast, Kerry has two tough hurdles. One is reconciling his past statements with his present position. The other is his present position. He deserved the crack that he has "57 varieties on Iraq," because since 9/11 he has said virtually the opposite of everything he proposed in the debate, be it on Saddam Hussein, Iraq, or America's response to terrorism. But the nature of TV is that it is in the moment, so viewers without total recall missed the senator's many zigzag contradictions--what Bush calls "mixed messages," aka flip-flopping.
Looking to Churchill. Kerry says Bush dangerously diverted troops from Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to Saddam in Iraq, but Americans increasingly see Iraq and Saddam as part of the global war on terrorism. Kerry would focus everything on al Qaeda and its networks. Bush more credibly sees rogue states as sponsors of terrorism to be confronted. Add barbaric beheadings of civilians to suicide bombers, and how could Americans not associate Iraq with terrorism when such monstrous acts are daily fare there?
Kerry is in danger of giving the killers a feeling we are not committed to do what it takes to win. He says he will kill them, but suggesting a timetable for bringing troops home--when more allies join in--is an incentive to terrorists for it implies that they can outlast us, that we are losing. Then Kerry says, "We must make Iraq the world's responsibility." But if it is an American quagmire or, as Kerry puts it, "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," why should anybody else want to get stuck in it? If Americans, in effect, have died in vain in Iraq, why would the French and the Germans have their soldiers die that way, too? Why on earth does he think our allies will shoulder this burden when they are falling short even in Afghanistan, a war they supported from the start--and when French and German spokesmen have made it clear they will not be sending troops to Iraq "now or ever" ?
The allies Kerry says he will call to a summit meeting have been unwilling even to provide a United Nations protection force for the upcoming Iraqi elections, despite pleas from the U.N. secretary general, Kofi Annan. Much of Europe would rather appease Islamic terrorism, given their domestic Muslim populations, than fight it. They look to the leadership of a Neville Chamberlain; the Americans look to the leadership of a Winston Churchill.
But if there is no chance that other nations could contribute enough to substantially reduce America's burden, or that we could train Iraqis more rapidly than under the leadership of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, then Kerry's proposals are hollow. To suggest bringing some troops home by next summer is to use the language of multilateralism as a facade for retreat. If the world is to be responsible for defeating the terrorists, no one will be responsible. A fresh start is not necessarily the right start.
Similarly, the United States absolutely needs China and others at the table to pressure North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Only multilateral pressures stand a chance of getting North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons and stop building more.
Where Bush is vulnerable to Kerry's attacks, though, is on the failure to have a coherent plan for the peace in Iraq after the brilliant military victory there. The administration is adapting, but hell, it is said, is truth seen too late. The Democratic base, which was in despair over Kerry, was reinvigorated by his performance last week. Many undecided voters clearly will have a better feeling about him. As all this is discussed around the kitchen tables and water coolers of America, there is just one certainty: This election is not over--not by a long shot.
This story appears in the October 11, 2004 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.