The Washington Post - Sunday March 14th. 2004.
SEN. JOHN KERRY's Economic Policies Would Cost Jobs in Ohio," a headline on the Bush campaign Web site asserts. "The most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen," Mr. Kerry says of his Republican adversaries. "Sen. Kerry Flip-Flops on Israel," says the Bush campaign. "Once again, George Bush is misleading America," a Kerry advertisement charges. "So's your mom," says -- no, wait. We haven't seen that one yet.
Yes, it's early for playground taunts and misleading attacks and, yes, it could be a long eight months. But if you want to worry about this presidential campaign, the strikingly early negative tone of the debate should not be the biggest concern. Indeed, after a rather milquetoast primary season, it could be refreshing, even healthy, to have an airing of the significant ideological differences between the two candidates. Every citation of contrast is not a negative attack from the opposing smear machine. Campaigns are about illuminating differences and arguing why your side is right.
But voters are entitled to a minimum level of honesty in the argument. On that score, Mr. Bush's initial attacks fall short. For example, the respective views of the two candidates on the proper use of intelligence in the war on terrorism are a legitimate -- indeed a critical -- issue in the first election of a president after Sept. 11, 2001. Yet Mr. Bush's attack on a Kerry proposal nine years ago to cut the intelligence budget does more to distort than to illuminate. When Mr. Kerry proposed a $1.5 billion cut over five years in the intelligence budget, the United States was reaping the "peace dividend" from the Cold War, and the center of congressional debate was not whether cuts could be made but how much could be cut from Pentagon and CIA spending. Mr. Kerry's proposed 1 percent cut was not a "gutting," as Mr. Bush alleged.
Likewise, it's fair to ask how Mr. Kerry's spending plans can be squared with his pledge to cut the deficit and whether he's overpromising. But the Bush campaign takes an unjustified leap in accusing Mr. Kerry of plotting to "raise taxes by at least $900 billion" because that is the estimated cost of his health care program.
Campaigns are also supposed to be about explaining what a candidate would do if elected. Candidate Bush did that four years ago, outlining priorities and a program for governing far more than has President Bush this time around, at least up to now. It's always difficult for presidents seeking a second term to come up with quite as compelling a reason for voters' support as they did the first time. Remember Bill Clinton's "Bridge to the 21st Century?" Yet Mr. Bush's rationale so far -- that he would provide "steady leadership" in dangerous times while making his tax cuts permanent -- isn't much of a governing agenda. Mr. Kerry has defined himself more in opposition to Mr. Bush than in terms of where he would take the country.
Voters deserve more substantial and honest fare. If there's good news in the 233-day campaign stretching ahead, it's that both candidates have plenty of time to do just that.
Op-Ed.
SEN. JOHN KERRY's Economic Policies Would Cost Jobs in Ohio," a headline on the Bush campaign Web site asserts. "The most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen," Mr. Kerry says of his Republican adversaries. "Sen. Kerry Flip-Flops on Israel," says the Bush campaign. "Once again, George Bush is misleading America," a Kerry advertisement charges. "So's your mom," says -- no, wait. We haven't seen that one yet.
Yes, it's early for playground taunts and misleading attacks and, yes, it could be a long eight months. But if you want to worry about this presidential campaign, the strikingly early negative tone of the debate should not be the biggest concern. Indeed, after a rather milquetoast primary season, it could be refreshing, even healthy, to have an airing of the significant ideological differences between the two candidates. Every citation of contrast is not a negative attack from the opposing smear machine. Campaigns are about illuminating differences and arguing why your side is right.
But voters are entitled to a minimum level of honesty in the argument. On that score, Mr. Bush's initial attacks fall short. For example, the respective views of the two candidates on the proper use of intelligence in the war on terrorism are a legitimate -- indeed a critical -- issue in the first election of a president after Sept. 11, 2001. Yet Mr. Bush's attack on a Kerry proposal nine years ago to cut the intelligence budget does more to distort than to illuminate. When Mr. Kerry proposed a $1.5 billion cut over five years in the intelligence budget, the United States was reaping the "peace dividend" from the Cold War, and the center of congressional debate was not whether cuts could be made but how much could be cut from Pentagon and CIA spending. Mr. Kerry's proposed 1 percent cut was not a "gutting," as Mr. Bush alleged.
Likewise, it's fair to ask how Mr. Kerry's spending plans can be squared with his pledge to cut the deficit and whether he's overpromising. But the Bush campaign takes an unjustified leap in accusing Mr. Kerry of plotting to "raise taxes by at least $900 billion" because that is the estimated cost of his health care program.
Campaigns are also supposed to be about explaining what a candidate would do if elected. Candidate Bush did that four years ago, outlining priorities and a program for governing far more than has President Bush this time around, at least up to now. It's always difficult for presidents seeking a second term to come up with quite as compelling a reason for voters' support as they did the first time. Remember Bill Clinton's "Bridge to the 21st Century?" Yet Mr. Bush's rationale so far -- that he would provide "steady leadership" in dangerous times while making his tax cuts permanent -- isn't much of a governing agenda. Mr. Kerry has defined himself more in opposition to Mr. Bush than in terms of where he would take the country.
Voters deserve more substantial and honest fare. If there's good news in the 233-day campaign stretching ahead, it's that both candidates have plenty of time to do just that.
Op-Ed.
ope:
