THE CENTRAL question facing the John Kerry campaign is whether to tilt left or go down the middle this week at the Democratic national convention in Boston. While American political conventions do not make any important decisions — everything is arranged in advance — they amount to a four-day opportunity to showcase the party programme on prime-time television. Even though the broadcast networks constantly cut back on their coverage of the conventions, cable news channels more than pick up the slack. In 2000 half of all American voters watched more than four hours of convention coverage and a quarter, the real junkies, watched more than six hours.
Historically, the conventions that cater to the party’s natural political base have not done as well for their candidates as those that reached over the heads of the faithful to the swing voters watching at home. The temptation to win the applause of the crowd in the convention hall can be overpowering, but too often highly partisan rhetoric turns off the broader television audience.
In 1988 the Democratic convention tilted leftward with the nomination of Mike Dukakis. The gathering came to a climax with a high-profile speech by Jesse Jackson, America’s black political leader, which won raves from the faithful but led the average voter to conclude that the party was beholden to minorities and special interests. Meanwhile, the Republicans played it better, using their conclave to reach out to the centre of American voters and values.
The next time around, in 1992, the roles were reversed. The Republicans, inflamed by Bill and Hillary Clinton, bashed the Democrats all week, focusing on Clinton’s draft avoidance, his extra-marital meanderings, and Hillary’s put-downs of moms who “stay home and bake cookies and serve tea”. The Democrats concentrated on projecting a broad and positive message to America, featuring a “new covenant” of opportunity coupled with responsibility. Clinton never lost the lead that the exchange of conventions got for him.
In 1996 the Republican Bob Dole spoke of building a bridge to America’s traditional values, while Clinton featured a “bridge to the 21st century”. Game, set, match to Clinton. By 2000 both parties got the point and kept their conventions positive, articulating their centrist vision of national progress. And the election was a tie.
Which way is John Kerry going? Left or centre?
The line-up of speakers advertised in advance would indicate that he may be making a big mistake and moving too far to the Left. For the first two nights such certified liberals as former President Jimmy Carter, former Vice-President Al Gore, and ultra-liberal Senator Ted Kennedy were booked. Bill and Hillary also appeared last night but as I write it is impossible to know which incarnation they would assume — the moderation of 1992, the liberalism of 1993-94, the centrism of 1995-97, or the partisan, leftist approach of 1998-2000.
The Republicans seem to know well the need to stay in the centre. Their list of prospective speakers includes certified moderates such as the California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose pro-choice and socially liberal views make him anathema to the far Right. Senator John McCain, the leader and sole member of the Republican Party’s one-man moderate wing in the Senate will also speak during prime-time. To round out the roster, the former New York City Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, and pro-everything else the Republicans can’t stand, will speak in prime time. Capping their centrist posturing, the Republican convention will also feature the Democratic apostate Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, a lifelong moderate who is now supporting George Bush.
The Republican decision to feature centrist speakers is a sleight of hand. None of their speakers — Schwarznegger, McCain, Miller, or Giuliani — represents the base of the party. Probably, none could get the nomination to be the Republican candidate for dog catcher. But, they serve their purpose as centrist ornaments to display to the public during their convention, while the Democratic Party seems to be at pains to advertise who and what it really is — the party of the Left.
This orientation may make for political courage and integrity but it’s not good politics. The spectre of a Ted Kennedy-Al Gore-John Kerry Democratic Party, celebrating in Boston, the capital of the state the Republicans call the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, is not likely to win a lot of votes.
Kerry’s convention also opens under the shadow of the 9/11 Commission report, which lays the blame for the terror attack on a lack of preparedness in the US. Since Bush had been on the job for only eight months, the eight years before of Bill Clinton came in for the lion’s share of the blame. Add to that the recently leaked criminal investigation of Clinton’s top National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, for spiriting classified material out of the archives and stuffing them in his pockets and allegedly his socks, the convention’s omens are not positive for Kerry.
Part of the Democrats’ problem is that the news has suddenly turned good for Bush. Each month brings fresh evidence of new job creation and economic growth alongside a reduction in American combat fatalities. Having lost 125 soldiers in April, the US suffered 64 deaths in May but only 31 in June. With Iraq coming under some kind of control and the economy picking up steam, Kerry could find the ground crumbling beneath his feet.
For the moment the race is still tied, according to the polls. It hasn’t moved in two months, after Bush recovered from a disastrous April. But the average convention gives the party a ten-point bounce that takes a long time to wear off. If each party’s gain offsets the other’s, as happened in 1996, there is not much impact. But if one party bounces and the other stays flat, the conventions can be the key element in predicting the outcome of the election.
The larger question for Kerry is what to talk about in his convention speech. Does he try to win the game on Bush’s playing field, or switch the action to his home court? If he dwells on terrorism and seeks to close Bush’s lead in this critical area, he tends to ratify national security as the key issue in the campaign — Bush’s core area of strength. If he uses the address to roll back the clock to the pre-9/11 issues such as education, the environment, healthcare, drug prices, and social security, he increases the salience of these core Democratic issues but at the expense of seeming to be soft on terror.
Since the media has been full of Iraq, terror, 9/11, and other national security issues to the exclusion of any focus on domestic concerns, Kerry may have no choice but to play on Bush’s turf. But with a roster of liberal speakers, can he hope to close the gap?
The 9/11 Commission report’s finding that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein did not live on separate planets after all, but had each other’s e-mail address, and had their staffs meet with some frequency, strengthens Bush’s hand going into the convention. And their conclusion that the American, British, and Russian intelligence services led Bush to believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction undermines the contention of the Left that they were a figment of the fevered imaginations of White House hawks.
In all, the Democratic convention opened yesterday with plenty for Kerry and Co to worry about.
Dick Morris was Bill Clinton’s chief strategist. He has recently advised the UK Independence Party
Join the Debate at comment@thetimes.co.uk
