Election 2004 Campaign Rhetoric
by Tara Dirst, M.A., M.S.

Kerry as a Representative Man

A good example of the silliness in the campaign rhetoric this season is the argument trotted out every fifteen seconds or so by the Bush team and the right-wing media (see Fox News Channel as a prime example) that Kerry is a "flip-flopper." Let me try to dispel this idea with actual facts instead of an uninformed personal attack. The two issues that the right tries to use to illustrate their contention that Kerry is a flip-flopper are (1) his opposition to the Iraq war in 1991 and his support for the Iraq war in 2003 and (2) his support/non-support of troop funding in the current Iraq crisis (the much-touted statement "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.") The context of these situations shows that Kerry is not, in fact, a flip-flopper, but actually an elected official who takes his responsibility as a Senator very seriously and realizes that there are very few easy answers in this world...and he believes that the American people are smart enough to understand that "some issues just aren't all that simple." (Kerry in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, July 29, 2004)

Take the first issue. It is true that in 1991, John Kerry voted against the authorization for action against Iraq. His vote reflected both the will of his constituents as well as a reasonable response to the intelligence community's opinion that the war would be quite difficult and cause the deaths of thousands of American troops. It was only logical to not want to unnecessarily kill Americans, while at the same time not ostracizing the people who expect you to vote in their interest. With the 2002 vote, Kerry was again representing his voter base by supporting the President. Most Americans believed President Bush when he repeated the now known as baseless accusations against the Hussein regime regarding weapons of mass destruction. Bush shamelessly used the September 11th tragedy to convince the American people and Congress to support an unnecessary war that has led to America being even less secure...but let's not blame Kerry for supporting the President and his power to protect the American people; let's blame Bush for his destructive and dangerous policies that undermine American security.

With regard to the second issue, Kerry did in fact vote for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Kerry believes that this war should not be paid for by our children – that the insane debt that Bush is putting us in can only hinder America's future economic growth and opportunity. He tried, in true Senatorial fashion, to force the responsible thing: pay for this war NOW, by rescinding a portion of the Bush tax cut. When that particular bill was not put before the Senate, he decided to take a stand by voting against the money. He stated that if his vote would have been a deciding one, he certainly would have voted for the money in order to provide for our troops, but that since it was clear that the bill would pass, he should take a moral stand against mortgaging our future.

What is not to understand?

Real World America

I can't tell you how tired I am of hearing from the Bush campaign how Kerry doesn't understand or represent the "real folk" of America - that Kerry believes that the "heart and soul" of America is in Hollywood while Bush knows that it is really the good, fine people of places like Springfield, Missouri. Nothing against Springfield, Missouri, but I just believe that every citizen is equally an American regardless of their geographic location. How ridiculous are these arguments that say that Hollywood doesn't represent us? The people who live in Hollywood DO represent us, just as the people who live in Springfield, Missouri represent us. I'm quite sure that there are people in Hollywood working right now who hail from Springfield! I believe that by disdaining Hollywood and people who like hit movies and television shows, the Republicans illustrate their intention not to represent the whole of America...but they only want to support people who are either just like them (wealthy, white, male power elites) or those that are easily swayed by the imaginary "culture war" propagated by the Republican party.

Elitism Versus Populism

It was interesting the other day when I was listening to NPR’s Terry Gross (Fresh Air) discussing the strategies used by the Club for Growth political action committee to elect people who are economically conservative. Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth and writer for the National Review, was explaining that Democrats are “elitists” while Republicans are “populists.” What was so funny is that in one sentence he was explaining that the prime example of the difference between Democrats and Republicans is the gay marriage issue: that Democrats are so far out of touch with the will of Joe Citizen that they support the radical notion of gay marriage (never mind that most Americans believe that gays should be able to have some sort of civil union)...they are soooo elitist, they want to shove gay marriage down everybody’s throat. In practically the next breath he explained the ideological difference between elitists and populists – that elitists think they know what is best for you, but populists want to let you decide. Isn’t that a scream? How, exactly, is denying people the right to marry “letting them decide?” It is the Republican moral police that want to decide what is best for you and limit your constitutional freedoms, while Democrats are interested in protecting your freedom to be yourself without harming others. On a side note, it is also quite funny (and by funny, I mean sad) that this PAC, the Club for Growth, which has a very specific mission to elect people into office who will lower or eliminate taxes will use this sort of “values” rhetoric to try and convince people to vote Republican...regardless of how their policies will REALLY affect them.

Dirst, Tara. 2004. Election 2004 Campaign Rhetoric. Organic Family Magazine 3:14.