|
Ultimately, I believe that what hurt Kerry most was the fact that his campaign lacked a unifying theme and message. Kerry had plenty of ideas. His domestic policy proposals were realistic, practical, and progressive. On foreign policy, he made a very strong case against Bush - unfortunately, he came to it a little too late. His criticism of the Bush campaign should have begun in the spring - relentless pounding. Shrum's influence was felt here - Shrum apparently told Kerry not to come out strongly antiwar but to "play it safe" and stick to a tired-and-true "fighting for us" message.
Kerry should have ignored Shrum's advice. He should have come out clearly against Bush's foreign policy in the spring, and he could have wrapped his entire critique of the Bush administration on both foreign and domestic policy in a theme of responsibility. Such a strategy would have played well to conservatives, independents, and people who want a "tough guy" - it would have successfully painted Bush and co., as dangerous, irresponsible utopians, while hammering to home the Democrats as the responsible, realistic party. The bases for this kind of critique were there throughout the campaign, and especially in the final few weeks, Kerry really hammered Bush on living in "fantasyland" - something I wish he'd said during the debates.
Now, we need to keep this responsibility theme alive. We're probably stuck with Bush for another 4 years, and we need to start unifying the Democratic Party through a common message and theme that clearly separates us from the opposition. A responsibility theme, if carried to its logical conclusion, could form a clear basis for a united Democratic campaign in 2006 and provide the seeds of victory for 2008.
|