Debate Fallout: Bush Helps Kerry, Attacks the 'Global Test'

Published on October 4, 2004 By blogic In Politics

Since losing the first presidential debate, the Bush campaign should have stayed focused on claims that Kerry was inconsistent. Instead, the campaign has uncharacteristically wasted valuable time on an off-message attack on the "global test". Worse yet for Bush, his campaign has coined a term to describe the global test -- the "Kerry Doctrine" -- that sounds presidential and describes the historically successful traditional American approach to foreign policy; an approach most Americans trust.

After the debate loss, the Bush campaign focused on this debate quote from John Kerry:

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

While Republicans initially focused on phrase "global test", they eventually switched to calling this the Kerry doctrine, which -- for reasons I will now describe -- is almost certainly a tactical mistake on their part.

So, what is Kerry saying? The above quote clearly says that Kerry believes the United States is free to act pre-emptively, but that the president should speak truthfully to the American people -- notice Kerry's focus on "your countrymen, your people" -- and that after such pre-emptive action, America should make an effort to explain our actions to other countries. Notice that Kerry used the past tense "did" to describe explaining our actions to the rest of the world. It's absolutely clear Kerry does not believe the United States needs to make such explanation before we act to protect our nation.

The "global test" Kerry refers to is one of having credibility with the rest of the world. While Kerry insists on America's right to act without consulting her allies, he also believes that alliances make America stronger, and that the trust of our allies makes America more capable of victory in the War Against Terror.

That is what the Bush campaign is now calling the Kerry Doctrine, but I think they've made a mistake here. The Kerry Doctrine is nothing new -- it's the winning strategy America pursued during both World War II and the Cold War. America moves decisively when she must, but she works truthfully with her allies to isolate the enemies of freedom. That the Bush campaign is disdainful of this approach, and the Bush Administration so adverse to applying it, is somewhat disconcerting since this approach is the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, 'Ike' Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush.

The Bush campaign has made a mistake to focus on this. Even worse for them, instead of focusing on the word "global", the Bush campaign created a term -- the Kerry Doctrine -- which sounds presidential. Calling it the Kerry Doctrine creates the impression that Kerry has a thought out approach to ending the quagmire in Iraq, and strengthening our traditional alliances. Polling shows that Americans feel isolated, and want other countries to bear more of the burden in Iraq; the Bush campaign is doing itself no favors to stress that Kerry is more willing to work with allies.

Strangely, the Bush campaign is uncharacteristically off-message.

Before they started attacking the Kerry Doctrine, they focused on points in the debate in which Kerry was unclear. This would have been a much smarter attack for them, since the public is already primed to be uneasy about Kerry's clarity, after nearly a half year of Bush campaign attacks on Kerry's consistency. That attack has been effective, and even if Kerry's strong debate performance would have limited the impact of continuing that attack, at least it wouldn't have distracted from it. By focusing on the Kerry Doctrine, the Bush campaign has lost valuable time to keep the question of Kerry's consistency first and foremost in the news, and they've highlighted that Kerry supports alliance based approach that most swing voters actually favor. Swing voters are worried that Kerry too nuanced, but polling shows a positive response to Kerry's focus on allies. The Bush campaign has wasted four days on an off-message attack that won't help their candidate. Like I said, uncharacteristic.

The only thing I can think of to explain it is that they're focused on boosting the voting turnout of right wingers -- who've never trust alliances -- but by changing their message, the Bush campaign has lost control of the current news cycle. While right wingers spin to each other about the Kerry Doctrine, web surfers have shown little interest, and the Bush campaign attacks have sunk out of view at web sites that rank stories by interest, such as Yahoo News and Memigo. The Bush campaign would be smart to switch to a new issue; because this one has no traction, and only helps Kerry by delaying other possibly more effective attacks.

Comments

drmiler

on Oct 04, 2004

Up to a point you are very correct. But you seem to be missing the point they're trying to make and that being:

and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons

Why should we have to *prove* anything to the rest of the world?

Bungy32

on Oct 04, 2004

Why should we have to *prove* anything to the rest of the world?

This, I think, is at the heart of the differences that split the country. I can buy this nationalist (isolationist) argument as at least a consistent and coherent position when it comes also with a primary focus on our own country. But when we are involved in regime changes and nation building around the world, then I think our credibility in the eyes of our allies matters. This debate is quickly coming down to very old arguments between positions on nationalism and globalism. Unfortunately, though, the Bush administration is trying to walk some odd (and I think untenable) position between the two, but ultimately tries to fall back on nationalism and some notion that the US should lead the rest of the world but never be accountable to its opinions or concerns.

drmiler

on Oct 04, 2004

Reply #2 By: Bungy32 - 10/4/2004 6:49:47 PM
Why should we have to *prove* anything to the rest of the world?

This, I think, is at the heart of the differences that split the country. I can buy this nationalist (isolationist) argument as at least a consistent and coherent position when it comes also with a primary focus on our own country. But when we are involved in regime changes and nation building around the world, then I think our credibility in the eyes of our allies matters. This debate is quickly coming down to very old arguments between positions on nationalism and globalism. Unfortunately, though, the Bush administration is trying to walk some odd (and I think untenable) position between the two, but ultimately tries to fall back on nationalism and some notion that the US should lead the rest of the world but never be accountable to its opinions or concerns.

Asking our allies their opinion and advise is one thing and I'm ALL for it. But if their advise is set aside why *should* we have to prove what we did was right? It's nessesary that the US does it, but no one else? When have you heard any other nation do that?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!