The nation seems to be talking.
"
Kerry is so boring!"
"Kerry has
no plan!
"
What does Kerry stand
for, anyway?"
Of course, the nation sometimes exaggerates for effect. Blandness is in the eye
of the beholder – or, in this case, the eye of interested parties – but it
should be noted that
most politicians are boring. After all, they're
usually talking about
politics. (Yawn.) As far as determining what
candidate Kerry stands for, well, that depends upon
who you
ask.
Still, even some
liberals are willing criticize Kerry for his perceived "slipperiness" as
well as other media promulgated faults. In fairness, however, it might be a good
idea to take a look at his opponents through the same lens that he's been
subjected to. Because, president or not, George W. Bush is still a candidate in
this race. And there are no free rides for candidates.
What is George W. Bush's primary issue? What does George W. Bush stand for?
Well, again, it
depends on who you
ask. Given that his campaign so far has relied on negativity (attack ads
make up
75% of his total number of television spots, compared to Kerry's 27%), one
could hardly be blamed for assuming that his primary message is that he is, in
fact, not John Kerry. One almost expects to see banners saying, "Bush: The only
thing standing in the way of John Kerry becoming president." Oddly enough,
Kerry's critics have accused him of playing the same game, saying that he's not
for anything; he's just against Bush – even though the man they're
supporting is doing what they say candidates shouldn't be doing.
Such criticisms are disingenuous, considering that Bush isn't exactly making hay
with any issues himself. Especially in the case of Iraq. As casualties mount,
the public's opinion seems to be that
the war is not being handled very well. In spite of this, Bush has
failed to
provide any new, dynamic policies to deal with the problem – which is the same
thing that Kerry's critics are demanding of him. Of course, the president's
supporters are insistent that his plan for reconstruction is just fine. (And
the man himself seems to be incapable of
finding any errors in himself.)
In fact, the more one looks at it, the more one finds that just about every
criticism of John Kerry can be made about George W. Bush. Kerry has flip-flops?
George has
flip-flops. Kerry took money from special interest groups?
Guess what?
There are a few major differences between the campaigns -- but, for some reason,
Bush's supporters seem to be unable to mount an attack against Kerry that can't also
be used against
their guy. Why is that? Perhaps the
president's spin doctors have been reluctant to mention some real differences because they
might bring to light some aspects of the president's administration that he'd
rather not have people think about. For example, why are they so darn weak and
vague when it comes to Kerry's plan to roll back the Bush tax-cuts? Because,
Kerry's plan is to only roll back the cuts for families earning more than
$200,000 a year. Conservative policy wonks can complain all they want about the
intricacies of his plan, but an American public that didn't care if Bush's tax
cuts would
bankrupt
Social Security, aren't likely to give a damn about the consequences of
raising taxes on the rich.
So, why is it that the Bush administration is allowed to be aimless while Kerry
gets raked over the coals? What it basically comes down to is a misunderstanding
of just who has to amass the burden of proof in this election. A president
sitting pretty with a
high approval rating can afford to simply campaign against change. But,
when that approval
rating
slips, and the country begins to question whether or not they're better off
than they were four years ago, it's time to step up with some new vision and
rally the electorate. Bush seems to think that he's done a great job, and such
extraordinary efforts are not required to win in November.
We'll see what the American public has to say about that. Maybe everything is
just fine, after all.
-B. C. Silvia
-6/9/2004
