Why is Kerry losing?According to a new poll conducted by ABC/WaPo, Bush has a 5 point lead over John Kerry. This means that the reason chaos in Iraq hasn't affected Bush's numbers negatively. Here are two theories why:
1. Crisis/tragedy only strengthens Bush. Look at 9-11. The American government failed to protect us, but instead of lashing back at it, Americans embraced it. When soldiers or civilians die at the hands of terrorists, Americans are filled with both anger and pride towards their country. Bush taps into that patriotic sentiment and converts it into political popularity, or so this theory goes. Bill Clinton successfully achieved this after the Oklahoma City bombing when he bit his lip and delivered a brilliant speech near the wreckage. Bush uses cowboy talk to express his outrage. Americans don't seem to be willing to blame him for the deaths in Iraq - rather, they blame the Iraqis. Recently, especially in conservative circles, there has been a tendency to push the theory that Iraqis aren't worthy of our gracious help. Bill O'Reilly recently argued this on one of his nightly shows. This approach will win votes - trust me. There are enough people out there who have explicitly racist sentiments towards Arabs and Muslims. The blame Iraqis and wave the flag strategy has a chance at being successful.
2. Why should Americans rally around an alternative to Bush when John Kerry hasn't presented a decipherable alternative? John Kerry is vastly different from Bush on domestic issues and even on issues of war. But peacekeeping issues? Kerry would take relatively the same approach Bush has been taking. Kerry called for more troops, and now Bush is open to the idea. Kerry wants to make the June 30th deadline more flexible, and there are signs within the Bush camp that he might consider it. Bush co-opts most of Kerry's foreign policy proposals as his own, leaving Kerry no chance to differentiate himself from Bush. There are two important issues regarding Iraqi reconstruction where Kerry and Bush differ:
A. Kerry argues that pluralism, stability, and security are more important than democracy in Iraq. Bush continues to argue for a full democracy.
B. Kerry wants to bring the UN into Iraq and give them some responsibility. Bush wants a minimum of UN responsibility (although he's been open to some help recently).
Neither A nor B really help Kerry win votes. While point A is realistic, it doesn't sound as appealing as creating a full fledged democracy. Point B opens Kerry up to more charges that he'll cede American authority to the UN (it's an unfair charge, but will be made).
My point here is that Kerry hasn't presented and alternative to the mess we're in. I'm actually making the same point Bush's henchmen often make. The problem is that there aren't any good alternatives in Iraq. I'm a realist who thinks that Iraq will burn to the ground within a year, regardless of what we do at this point. We've already lit the fire, now we need only wait for it to burn.
The only way Bush is going to lose (on this issue) is if people start believing that we shouldn't have entered Iraq in the first place and NOT that the situation is being handled badly, because (1) the situation is being "handled" by the military, and they are insulated from criticism (it would be unpatriotic to criticize the troops even if they're doing an awful job!) and (2) Kerry hasn't really presented a plan that varies from Bush's plan.
