Would it matter if George W. Bush were a robot? Part II

To clarify a few things that I said in Part I.

Kevin Drum has two posts about what he calls the Issues vs. Character question. here's one. here's the other. Kevin says:

Over at the Prospect, Michael Tomasky suggests that Democrats fight campaigns on issues while Republicans fight them on character. Republican positions on most issues are basically unpopular, so their only hope of winning is a relentless assault on the character of their Democratic opponent.

Here's Tomasky's article, for reference. But later Kevin seems to disagree with Tomasky on certain points:

Now, I happen to agree with Tomasky that Republicans generally go for the jugular more effectively than Democrats, but it's a big mistake for us liberals to kid ourselves into thinking that Republicans win elections solely because they fool people into voting for them. It's not just that this is a debilitating mental attitude — although it is — but it's also not true. Our main problem isn't that this year's campaign has ignored the issues, our main problem is that the #1 issue in this campaign is national defense, and on that issue — like it or not — the majority of Americans favor the Republican position. If John Kerry wants to win, he should focus on the issues, but he has to focus on the issues that matter most in this campaign cycle.

Kevin Drum's an extremely intelligent guy, and generally I agree with what he says, but I think there are two things wrong here.

1) I think framing the two sides as Issues vs. Character (Dems talk about issues, Repubs talk about character) is wrong. That's sooooooo 12 years ago, and I don't think it's an accurate view of what either side is doing.

Which is to say this: Kerry is not running an issues campaign, he's running a character campaign. Remember his convention speech? It could have been given by a Republican. It was heavily biographical in character. Its basic message was sort of a "I defended this country in Vietnam and I'll do it again and I have better judgment than the other guy" kind of thing.

It's also to say this: Bush is not running a character campaign, though he ran that kind of a campaign four years ago. I think the "strong leader" schtick is fundamentally distinguishable from "character" in general. This partially because Bush's character is certainly not unimpeachable. There are a lot of people who believe he lied about WMD, that he's lied about his National Guard Service, that he was kind of a fuck-up for a long time. If he ran as a great moralist, it would be too easy to attack him. What he has run on is an equivalency between not changing his mind about something and "strong leadership."

In fact, neither side is running an issues campaign. Which brings me to my second point:

2) Neither side is running an issues campaign. Kevin says, "Our main problem isn't that this year's campaign has ignored the issues, our main problem is that the #1 issue in this campaign is national defense, and on that issue — like it or not — the majority of Americans favor the Republican position." And he says later "Republicans aren't ignoring issues and running solely on character, they're just being smart about which issues to emphasize" (his emphasis). I don't think either of those statements is true.

While it might be true that a majority of Americans generally favor Republican positions on military issues (or, more accurately, feel safer when a Republican, who is not afraid to invade whoever looks at him funny, is in office), it is not true that the president has made national security a real issue in the campaign.

To put it in a different way: Kerry gets questioned a lot about what he would do in Iraq, but does anyone know what Bush would do there in a second term? Has Bush layed out a real plan, an exit strategy, a way to stabilize the country? Not that I know of. What sort of things do you hear over and over from Bush? This kind of stuff, and I'm paraphrasing here: "At least you know where I stand" and "John Kerry is a flip-flopper" and "Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, I'm glad he's gone, and I'd do it again." That's not making an issue out of national security, that's making an issue out of the fact that he is stubborn.

If Bush were making an issue out of national security, everyone in the country would know what Bush plans to do in his second term about terrorism. What specifically he would do to defeat it, where he'd go, who he'd make alliances with, who he'd attack. And we'd know what specifically he'd do on Iraq, which we don't.

I don't think that Bush is campaigning on either Character or on Issues. He's campaigning on a very narrow and elusively defined quality, something called "strong leadership."

That must be the weakest campaign strategy, in real terms, I've ever seen, really. I think it works for him because people don't pay close attention to what his positions are, but I think even a cursory examination of the rhetoric here makes the whole thing fall apart.

Because after all, he's a "strong leader," and apparently a "strong leader" is associated with having a position and sticking to it ("at least you know where I stand"). But -- and I'll never tire of saying this -- doesn't not changing your mind in the face of real evidence make you a weak leader instead?

As a strategic matter, I still don't think Democrats have managed to successful pierce the "strong leader" image. If they did, and it would be tough because the imagine is so ingrained in the national psyche, I think that the Bush house of cards would fall easily. Whether Dems will do it is another matter.

-- Michael

Comments

[d meyers]

"it is not true that the president has made national security a real issue in the campaign. "

and

"If Bush were making an issue out of national security, everyone in the country would know what Bush plans to do in his second term about terrorism. What specifically he would do to defeat it, where he'd go, who he'd make alliances with, who he'd attack. And we'd know what specifically he'd do on Iraq, which we don't. "

I disagree totally. National security is the key issue because the economy, health care prices, assault weapons ban, and all other domenstic issues really don't mean much to people if a Beslin happens in the U.S., if suicide bombers start blowing themselves up in malls, if a dirty bomb or real nuke goes off in New York city.

What is GW's position on fighting terrorists???? VERY EASY. Bush is taking the fight to the terrorists all over the world. Bush has put countries that support, supply terrorists on notice that they are subject for serious consequences. Bush is actively going after groups, domesticly and abroad, that fund terrorists organizations. Bush is working with allies in rounding up terrorists (EU and Pakistan are fine examples). Bush is also pushing democracy in the middle east as a way to hopefully turn the tide of radicallism that is everywhere in the middle east.

On the homefront the Homeland Security dept is a decent step forward in trying to bring together huge bureacratic entities so they will share information. Of course there is much more to do to get the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security Dept, INS, NSA, etc to work together but progress is being made. The Patriot Act is also a step forward in giving the gov't some policing tools when combating terrorists within our borders. Is it perfect? Of course not but it is a step forward.

[here's what's left]

I disagree totally. National security is the key issue because the economy, health care prices, assault weapons ban, and all other domenstic issues really don't mean much to people if a Beslin happens in the U.S.,

honestly, d, did you read what i wrote, or did you just read what you wanted me to have said? the point is not that national security is not an important issue, it's that bush has avoided making it a real issue.

Bush is working with allies in rounding up terrorists (EU and Pakistan are fine examples).

Hmmmm... too bad everyone in those countries hates us. that's a good strategy. get the electorates of our allies so worked up that their leaders don't want to help us.

Bush is also pushing democracy in the middle east as a way to hopefully turn the tide of radicallism that is everywhere in the middle east.

hmmmm... that hasn't worked so well so far. i don't think administration types even use the word "democracy" anymore. you might be the last of that religion.

and neither of those things you mention are things that bush has run on, because both of those aspects of his foreign policy have been spectacular failures.

On the homefront the Homeland Security dept is a decent step forward in trying to bring together huge bureacratic entities so they will share information. Of course there is much more to do to get the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security Dept, INS, NSA, etc to work together but progress is being made.

Well, the Homeland Security dept. was orginally a democratic idea, but never mind that. i think your stuff about getting people to share information is as much a part of kerry's plan as it is bush's.

but my point, of course, was not any of this. my point was that bush is not making these things issues. the tenor of the bush campaign and of the national media coverage has been the "strong leader" thing, not his specific plan, which hasn't been too successful in certain respects, as i mentioned above.