Part 1
 Surveys say the war on terror in general and the situation in Iraq in particular will account for one third of a typical American voters decision in 2004. Some say it is more like one-fifth. The economy is hugely more important. But, well, as a non-American voter I get to ignore some of the polls. So, looking in to the country here's the five reasons I would vote for Kerry in approximate order of importance.
Iraq will not worsen under Kerry. It is unlikely Kerry can significantly alter the reconstruction of Iraq at this stage, for better or for worse. This may be a depressing thought because it does imply America is pretty much stuck with the hand they have. But history shows that any American president, Democrat following a Republican or vice versa, will play the American hand consistently after significant money and democratic paths have been initiated.
Long before this 2004 election the Bush administration committed US$18.5 billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq and that will be deployed over the coming years regardless of who is president. It is possible to trust America to do the decent thing here. Likewise, aid for Iraq inveigled by Mr Bush out of European and Japanese wallets will be spent regardless of who wins the presidency in 2004.
It's worth clarifying just how much this aid is. Per capita, Iraqis will be receiving in the coming years similar money to Marshall Aid committed to Europe after WWII. Preliminary elections in January 2005, the creation of an Iraqi constitution and follow-on elections in 2006 will also happen regardless of who is in the White House.
Changing Presidents mid-war is fine. Standing back from Iraq and looking in general at the war on terror. Democracies are usually able to run wars with different leaders. Britain switched from Chamberlain to Churchill in the early days of WWII. Vietnam was prosecuted by four presidents: Kennedy and Johnson, both Democrats, then Nixon and Ford, both Republicans. This does not matter if the war on terror seems less like WWII or Vietnam and more like the Cold War, having few clear fronts and identifiable enemies and no obvious timescale.
Eisenhower was a two term Republican president and in several ways his presidency was similar to Mr Bush because both men fought (and in Mr Bush's case are still fighting) an imprecise and ambiguous war. Yet Eisenhower's chosen successor, Nixon, lost to Kennedy in the middle of that Cold War. America decided to appoint a new and unproven commander-in-chief, as John Kerry might be characterised, and that switch from Republican to Democrat was quickly vindicated. Barely a year afterwards Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis supremely. Arguably JFK saved the world from a war that Mr Nixon would probably have initiated. Afterwards the Bay of Pigs was an uncertain Kennedy move, yes. And on Vietnam Kennedy was wobbling well before his assassination. But changing from a Democrat to a Republican in the middle of the Cold war was no problem for America in the 1950s. And it should not be in the 2000s.
Economy. By rights this should top the list as it is the single most important influence on American voting decisions. The economy, stupid, dwarfs everything else. Like Iraq, however, most of Kerry's hand has already been formed by Bush. There's not much a Democrat can do, fundamentally, because Bush's approach to managing economic slowdown was exactly like Reagan in the 1980s: spend. Mr Bush did not quite top Reagan's deficit as per cent of GDP but came close.
The result for a Kerry presidency will be two fold. First, he cannot become a spending president. The hole is just too deep. Second, Kerry will reap the harvest of Bush's spending. As Clinton who followed Reagan showed that harvest will happen regardless of who is president.
Human rights and Guantanomo. Not that America will revert to the liberalism it practiced before 9/11. It will be years, if not decades, before that happens again. Much of the Patriot Act will stay whoever is president. But Kerry is more likely to get rid of "enemy combatants" imprisoned in Guantanomo Bay in Cuba.
Democrats handle foreign policy turmoil well. One final insight from history. Democrat presidents negotiated America through both World Wars in the twentieth century: Wilson was in power from 1913-1921 and F D Roosevelt from 1933-1945. Truman was also a Democrat and handled Marshall Aid, the reconstruction of Europe, Korea and American administration in Japan.
Where Kerry is wrong. Of course, like all American presidents you have to take some rough with your smooth. The two big concerns with Kerry are on tax and North Korea. Tax cuts as a rule get my support but Kerry won't go that way. In fact it is safe to bet that Kerry will tax more. The simplification of the tax system also gets my support and Kerry won't go this way either. Out-sourcing and free trade should be encouraged and allowed to prosper. None of these will happen under Kerry. He will follow through on taxing wealthier individuals. He will close down some companies that outsource work to Asia and elsewhere. All of this is a mistake.
During the debates one of Mr Bush's bigger mistakes was letting Kerry off the hook over North Korea. There was a mile wide opportunity here. Kerry's general message and this was not just for North Korea but for other ticklish problems went something like this: he intended to build stronger and more multilateral alliances. Yet during the debates Kerry was clear on his strategy for North Korea: open bilateral talks, Washington-Pyongyang, and end the multilateral talks that currently include Japan, Russia and China. So here is a crisp Kerry contradiction: on the one hand the senator wants generally more multilateral alliances. And on the other hand in this specific instance he wants a reduction in multilateral alliances over North Korea. This does not compute. |
