As the Democrats look ahead to the 2004 Presidential election, and flee the electoral house of ill-repute that constituted the recent midterm contests, they need to establish certain and concrete criteria for a candidate to take on the seemingly infallible Bush political machine.
But first, the Democrats' internal hiccups, the second guessing, the what ifs and the what nows, must to be wiped away before any thoughts of the 2004 race can occur. The party is long overdue for a massive infrastructural re-evaluation, a shakedown amongst the leadership, a rethinking of both the Democrat's philosophy and political approach.
But once, or if, these problems are addressed, all attention will be emphasized on 2004, much more so than on the Republican's legislative dictatorship in congress. To take on Bush, the party must recognize the need for certain essential candidate characteristics in order to make a dent in Bush's political armor.
As the 2002 races demonstrated, the Rove-Bush tandem is politically far superior to any one Democratic leader or personality on the horizon as of now, and out of the midterm election's ashes must rise a Democratic politician with three very traits that are key to defeating Bush in 2004.
First, and foremost, is the need for a candidate with a strong war record. The advantage of this is that it undercuts Bush's main source of political capital, popularity arising from his leadership during the war on terrorism. Bush has wrangled the public's perception that he, along with the Republican Party, represents the stewardship the nation needs in a time of national crisis. Only a comparable candidate who too has been a patriot, who has fought a battle not from behind a desk but from behind a turret, can best deflect this Bushian advantage.
Someone who has fought on the frontlines also provides the most forceful critique of the current war on terrorism, one which has been wrought with failures in the present, and will be further criticized as problems are exposed in the future. A Democratic candidate without war experience will be an easy target while Bush has his wartime advantages, and would be a politically injured deer surrounded by Rove's Republican wolf pack. Distinguished war heroes play well publicly in patriotic times.
The second characteristic that a successful Democratic candidate in 2004 must possess is the fearless ability to attack Bush's agenda and political ideology. This was the main reason the Democrats did so poorly in 2002; they failed to present a cohesive argument against the Bush record. They lacked the leadership necessary to be bold and attack Bush where he was weakest, on domestic issues such as the economy and corporate reform.
The time has come to shed reliance on polls, on focus groups and media surveys. In 2004, the Democratic candidate must be willing to be independent minded enough not to be constrained by these political tools and imprisoned, as Al Gore was in 2000, by public perception rather than focusing on public realities.
The man or woman under the Democrat's banner should be bold enough to inject new life into the party and America with bold ideas not conceived by John Zogby or CNN, but rather by the ingenuity of innovation. It is time to break the mold and try something new and grand rather than relying on the past practice of duck and cover politics; it's time to expose Bush's conservatism and bring back a voice of moderation to the White House.
The third consideration the Democratic Party must take into account when searching for a Presidential candidate is the need to find a true centrist who can simultaneously appease the left, which Gore failed to do in 2000, yet inspire political moderates and independents across America. This was the key to Bush's victory in his run for the White House.
He appeased the extreme wings of his party while placating to the center and moderate Americans. It was Clintonian campaigning all the way, with a Republican slant. Bush campaigned strongly from the middle, and gave the nation the appearance that he was a new breed of moderate Republican. Of course he was actually a conservative in centrist clothing.
A true liberal running against Bush would be too generous of a target for the Republican office of political assassination, an early holiday gift in November 2004. Many Democrats are crying for the need to find realistic opposition to Bush via presenting a strong liberal alternative; if the party is interested in political suicide, then by all means, allow a candidate in the same class as Walter Mondale to run. However, the 2004 results will be much like the 1984 results.
So where does this leave the party? Who fits the criteria and who is best suited to challenge Bush in 2004? There are only two people in politics today who are cut from the bedrock the Democrats require.
The first is John McCain. He is an independent who dons Democratic regalia on the Senate floor. There is little chance of him running for President as an independent, let alone as a Democrat, but in some Democratic circles, there has always been this intriguing prospect, ever since Jim Jeffords jumped Republican ship in 2001, of a McCain defection, paving the way for a possible McCain-Bush rematch in 2004. With the Republicans regaining control in the Senate, the possibility of McCain emigrating from his conservative shores has heightened, but the Democrats cannot afford to wait for McCain to join the party where his political ideology truly resides.
They need to look to another senator as a source for leadership, direction, and vocal criticism of Bush: Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. In Kerry, the Democrats have an effective legislator, orator, and personality with the ability to attack Bush without appearing to be, using Bush's favorite catch phrase of the year, unpatriotic.
Senator Kerry served in Vietnam, only to return home and protest the very war he fought in, has shown time and time again that he is confident enough to assail Bush on every level, from foreign affairs to the environment, and above else, is a centrist Democrat who is not shy about liberal stances on certain issues. Out of all the prospective candidates, he would be the hardest for Bush and the Republicans to attack simply because Kerry would be gracious enough to fight back. He, effectively, is the ideal candidate and the logical choice for 2004.
Adam Blickstein is a senior majoring in Political Science
More from The Tufts Daily
