There’s been no shortage on advice for John Kerry lately. I’ve lost count of how many have suggested that there’s a magical, rhetorical silver bullet out there that would put Kerry up for good if only he’d use it. If he’d only say this, whatever this is, enough voters would come to their senses that it’d be a landslide.
This is, I’m afraid, kind of silly. There is no one soundbite, or perfect ad, or killer theme that will clinch the election. Presidential campaigns are just too complex and voters’ interests too varied.
That said, of all the advice I’ve seen about rhetorical approaches Kerry should adopt, I think The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber has the right idea. Coincidentally, Kerry and his campaign aides seem to agree.
About a month ago, Scheiber offered a hint, for example, about how Kerry should answer questions about Iraq.
That said, Kerry has a very easy way out of this problem, one that perfectly tracks with voters’ intuitions about the two presidential candidates: Any time he gets a question about Iraq from here on out, he should say, very simply, “Look, if you like the way the war in Iraq turned out, vote for the other guy. If you don’t like the way it turned out, vote for me.” End of story.
This strikes me as completely right. The war in Iraq is a debacle of historic proportions, a fact which even many Republicans recognize. If this election is a referendum on the war, I like Kerry’s chances. A lot.
But, as it turns out, Scheiber’s month-old advice about answering questions about Iraq has broad applicability.
On Saturday, [former Clinton aide Joel] Johnson drew applause from Democrats assembled for a weekly strategy meeting at Mr. Kerry’s headquarters when he reassured aides that the campaign had settled on a clear line of attack against Mr. Bush, people at the meeting said. They said Mr. Johnson told the group that the campaign wanted the entire party to heed the new talking points.
“It’s very simple,” Mr. Johnson said in an interview yesterday, describing what he said would be the template for Mr. Kerry’s speeches and advertisements in the weeks ahead. “It’s: ‘Bush has taken us in the wrong direction. If you want more of the same for the next four years, vote for President Bush. If you want a new direction, John Kerry and John Edwards.’ It’s not complicated. Failed policies, jobs and the economy, health care.”
Exactly. It seems to me Kerry’s best chance is to make this campaign about the issues facing the country. I know this sounds painfully obvious, but consider this (largely accurate) observation from ABC News’s The Note from the weekend:
[T]he Bush campaign just laughs and laughs and laughs behind their poker faces at how easily they have banished the economy, health care, poverty, jobs, and the chaos in Iraq from the national debate.
Fine, let’s bring these issues back. They’re on the voters’ minds, they say they’re looking for answers, so let’s offer them a change.
Scheiber expanded on this over the weekend:
[E]very question Kerry gets at the upcoming presidential debates should begin with the following construction: “Look, it’s pretty simple. If you’re happy with what my opponent has done on [health care, the economy, Iraq, the environment, corporate accountability, etc.], vote for him. If you’re not happy about it, here’s what I’m proposing…”
And what issue can Bush realistically plug into that equation and come out looking good? The man has no accomplishments and none of his plans have met with any success. If elections for a second term are referendums on the incumbent, great; Kerry offers a country that doesn’t generally like where it’s headed a terrific alternative to four years of failure.
As luck would have it, Kerry is embracing this approach nicely right now. As Slate’s Chris Suellentrop reported yesterday:
Kerry offered a taste of his new message Monday morning at one of his “front porch” campaign stops in Canonsburg, Penn., but he waited until the afternoon in Racine, W.V., to unveil his new stump speech in full. The new message: Go vote for Bush if you want four more years of falling wages, of Social Security surpluses being transferred to wealthy Americans in the form of tax cuts, of underfunded schools, and lost jobs. But if you want a new direction, he said, vote for Kerry and Edwards.
It’s a simple and obvious message, but Kerry hasn’t used it before.
It’s not rocket science. Bush has failed. If you want more failure, vote for Bush. If you want a change, here’s Kerry.
The campaign seems to picking up on this. When the Medicare premium hike was announced, the campaign issued a statement:
“The choice is clear: If voters want a president who gives billions to the drug companies, stick with George Bush. If voters want a president who will put the needs of seniors first and protect Medicare, vote for John Kerry.”
Likewise, the campaign issued a Labor Day report with this quote:
“If you believe that losing good paying job and replacing them with ones that don’t pay the bills means that America is heading in the right direction, you should support George Bush and his policies of failure. But if you believe America needs to move in a new direction, then join with us. John Edwards and I offer a better plan that will create good paying jobs that let hardworking families get ahead.”
This is a simple message, that’s negative without being nasty, and takes advantage of the strong majorities that believe America is on the wrong track. I’m not so naïve as to believe one rhetorical approach can set a path for victory, but nevertheless, this is the kind of message that will resonate with voters and help bring issues back to the forefront of the national debate — which is the last place Bush wants them.