CAN BUSH LOSE?
Joseph A. Buttigieg  

In a matter of a few weeks, the idiosyncratic process by which Americans select their presidential candidates transformed the political scene in the US. Until mid-January, before the first in a long series of Democratic Party caucuses and primaries was held in Iowa, political observers and commentators were focussing their attention almost entirely on one candidate: Howard Dean, the former governor of the small northeastern state of Vermont (population, 620,000). Through innovative use of the internet and brilliant organizational work at the grass roots level, Dean had generated over $41 million in campaign funds and attracted a mass of enthusiastic, hard working supporters. It was no secret that the Democratic Party establishment regarded him as a maverick and dreaded the prospect of him becoming their standard bearer in the November elections. (The situation was somewhat reminiscent of the Republican Party's displeasure with Senator John McCain's campaign for the nomination in 2000.) Dean seemed unstoppable, however; so much so that he obtained the endorsement some very prominent Democrats, including Al Gore. The national opinion polls showed that he was the overwhelming favorite. A composite of the polls taken in early January showed Dean leading with 24%; his closest rivals were the former General Wesley Clark with 12%, and the Congressman from Missouri, Richard Gephardt, with 11%. The Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry trailed badly with a mere 7%, even though he had amassed over $25 million in campaign funds. Dean, it appeared, had all the momentum; but the huge lead he seemed to enjoy over his rivals was also his greatest disadvantage. His status as the early frontrunner guaranteed intensive coverage by all the media: his speeches, his demeanor, his strategic decisions, even the personality of his wife were all scrutinized by the hordes of reporters who followed his every move. The other candidates directed most of their fiercest criticism at him, fearing that they would quickly be eleminated from the race if his rapid rise were not at the very least slowed down.
In the end, Dean was the victim of his own success. It was assumed that Dean would comfortably win the New Hampshire primary on January 27—a state in which Richard Gephardt stood little chance of success. In order to keep his candidacy alive, Gephardt had to win the Iowa caucuses on January 19. Dean, on his part, believed that a victory in Iowa would transform his campaign into a juggernaut. In the run up to the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt and Dean attacked one other mercilessly. Democrats had reason to worry that the bitterness of the internecine struggle would cause irreparable damage to their party and enhance even further George W. Bush's chances of re-election. As it turned out, the voters in Iowa turned their backs on both Dean and Gephardt. Kerry, whose campaign was by all accounts virtually moribund a few weeks earlier, emerged as the surprise winner with 37% of the Iowa vote, closely followed by the Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, with 32% of the vote. Dean's third place finish with 18% of the vote astounded everyone, including Dean himself who immediately committed political suicide with his now famous or notorious screaming speech. A week later, Kerry consolidated his position with a solid victory in New Hampshire; but this time his success was not unexpected. After New Hampshire, Dean's campaign went into a downward spiral while Kerry has been enjoying one success after another, suffering only two minor setbacks in two southern states: South Carolina (where John Edwards' southern roots guaranteed him victory) and in Oklahoma (where Wesley Clark enjoyed the only positive result of his short-lived campaign). Kerry subsequently erased any doubts about his ability to gain support among Democratic voters in the South (which, in any case, is a Republican stronghold) by winning the primaries in Virginia and Tennessee. Edwards, however, remains a viable candidate. The final outcome will be determined, most probably, in early March following the primaries in such heavily populated states as New York, California, and Ohio.
The turnaround in the fortunes of Dean and Kerry has been very dramatic. It remains, however, a minor phenomenon compared to the much more profound and even more surprising transformation of the entire political scene in the US. First of all, the Democratic Party has been re-invigorated. This is largely due, ironically, to Howard Dean who from the very beginning launched a frontal attack on Bush and his administration and took an unequivocal position against the war on Iraq. The boldness of Dean's position helped galvanize the core constituency of the Democratic Party and proved an inspiration to many young people who ordinarily shun mainstream politicians. Kerry and Edwards, by contrast, had originally adopted a more cautious attitude: in October 2002, in the Senate, they had both voted in favor of Bush's Iraq policy. (Gephardt had done the same in the House of Representatives.) Wesley Clark joined the race for the nomination as an anti-war Democrat; but that was after Dean had shown that it was possible to denounce Bush's Iraq policy without being dismissed as an unpatriotic radical. To be sure, the Republican mass media spared no effort to depict Dean as an extremist who failed to appreciate the seriousness of the “war on terror” and the need for a “strong” military posture. These attacks not only failed to erode the widespread support for Dean but they also emboldened the other Democratic candidates to openly denounce both the decision to go to war with Iraq and the way in which the war has been conducted. (Joe Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut and Al Gore's running partner in 2000, was the only candidate who persisted in defending the Iraqi war—his campaign, an abject failure, came to an early end.) In other words, Dean showed his fellow Democrats that they need not be intimidated by the Republicans' pseudo-patriotic rhetoric about “national security” and that Bush is vulnerable.
Second, as many polls have shown, the majority of voters who participated in the caucuses or cast their ballots in the primaries made defeating Bush their first priority. They did not necessarily vote for the candidate who best represented their views; rather, they picked the candidate who they thought was most likely to prevent Bush from being re-elected in November. Kerry has been the major beneficiary of the growing dissatisfaction with the president, in part because of his heroic military service in Vietnam makes him immune from charges of anti-patriotism. There are those who believe that a “liberal” from the northeast cannot generate the kind of broad nationwide support needed to unseat Bush; hence, a fair number of Democrats regard Edwards, a southerner, as a more appealing candidate. Still, Democratic voters are now arguing less about the different ideas and personal characteristics of their potential candidates; instead, they are focussing increasingly on how to bring an end to the Bush presidency. The key issue became “electability.”
Third, the spreading sensation that Bush can be challenged frontally has had the corollary effect of making Bush seem vulnerable. This, in turn, has put Bush on the defensive. The White House, once aloof and Olympian, now feels compelled to respond to the sharp criticism coming from every corner of the country where primaries are taking place. As a result, Bush is looking less presidential and more like a politician running for office. The political strategists at the White House sought to re-focus the nation's attention on Bush by scheduling his State of the Union speech immediately after the New Hampshire primary in January. The nationally televised State of the Union speech is a choreographed annual ritual full of pomp and circumstance that provides every incumbent president with the perfect setting for demonstrating his authority and leadership. As Bush delivered his speech, Republican congressmen applauded enthusiastically and frequently, repeatedly rising to their feet. Nevertheless, the speech was a failure; the performance impressed only the most diehard partisans. In other another effort to stem the political advance of the Democrats, Bush arranged to be interviewed at length for the NBC television network by the highly respected political journalist, Tim Russert. The much publicized interview was aired on Sunday, 8 February and, once again, Bush's performance was anything but convincing. Since then Bush has been travelling all across the US giving speeches to carefully selected audiences; in other words, Bush has been behaving more and more like a presidential candidate on the electoral campaign trail. In the press, on TV and on radio, conservative propagandists and ideologues have been trying their best to help Bush's campaign by spreading unfounded rumors about Kerry's supposed marital infidelity, and by circulating photographs from the 1970s of Kerry attending rallies protesting the Vietnam war. The most vocal conservatives are attacking Kerry as if he were already anointed as the Democratic presidential candidate. Ideally, of course, they would like to derail Kerry's campaign for the nomination because, rightly or wrongly, they perceive the relatively inexperienced Edwards as a less formidable opponent.
Paradoxically, the Democrats might be better off if the primaries were to keep going a little longer, provided the candidates continued attacking Bush rather than one another. Prolonging the primaries, of course, costs money which the Democrats can ill afford to spend, especially since Bush has already accumulated over $130 million dollars for the upcoming electoral campaign. On the other hand, the extensive news coverage of the primaries has heightened the interest of the electorate, making people more attentive to sensitive issues. The intense public debates over the failure or manipulation of intelligence and over the conduct of the war itself are clearly weakening Bush stature. The same is true of the relentless assault the Democratic candidates have been launching on the state of the economy, the massive budget deficits, the high rate of unemployment, the gross inadequacies of the health care system, and the serious shortcomings of public education.
The caucuses and primaries were supposed to be a long, hard fought battle among Democratic aspirants for the presidency. In a matter of weeks they unexpectedly became an effective platform for challenging and weakening Bush's standing in public opinion. Nevertheless, even though Bush appears weaker now than at any time in his presidency, it would be foolhardy to make any predictions. As the primaries have shown, fortunes change quickly in politics. An unexpected event, a silly faux pas, a scandalous secret unearthed by a zealous researcher—everything could change and change utterly in a matter of days. Right now, however, it looks like Howard Dean has effectively revitalized the Democratic Party and even though (or, ironically, precisely because) he will not be the Democratic contender, Bush's re-election no longer seems to be inevitable.