IF THERE was any question about John Kerry being a "liberal," the Massachusetts senator cleared it up during the February debate of Democratic presidential contenders in New York City. No way, Kerry said.
"It's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life," Kerry snapped--before proudly coming up with a long list of his less-than-liberal credentials, including "deficit reduction" and putting "100,000 police officers on the streets of America.
After a brief flirtation with populist rhetoric and his uptight version of being a "regular guy" that helped get him the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in primaries earlier this year, Kerry has quickly eased back into a role he seems much more comfortable with. Sounding like his opponent, George W. Bush.
So while Kerry criticizes the way Bush went to war in Iraq, he supports extending the brutal occupation and sending in more troops. Kerry's answer to workers getting the short end of the stick in the U.S.'s jobless recovery is a tax cut to U.S. corporations that will supposedly create jobs in the U.S.--a not-so-new spin on an old Republican plan.
Anyone familiar with the logic of "electability" touted by the Democratic Party establishment won’t be surprised by the shape that Kerry's campaign has taken. As Newsweek political reporter Howard Fineman advised in an April column, Kerry needs "a coherent, centrist vision." But "Kerry can't occupy the center if he's defined as a mere liberal," adds Fineman.
Fineman's suggestions? Kerry should run ads reminding voters "that he was a prosecutor and that he voted for welfare reform in 1996, a brave (for Massachusetts) stand that drew picketers to his home."
Salon's liberal columnist Joe Conason had more of the same advice in an article titled "Branding Kerry with the L-word." In response to Republican ads claiming that the senator is a "Massachusetts liberal," Conason discussed the qualities that might shield Kerry from this "attack."
Talking about his service in Vietnam, sports, hunting and motorcycles "doesn't fit the stereotype of the left-wing wimp," Conason wrote. "Moreover, his voting record is sufficiently mixed to frustrate the more conventional forms of stereotyping. Like Bill Clinton, Kerry has inoculated himself as an advocate of fiscal responsibility and welfare reform, and a tough opponent of crime...
"The Republicans will soon start spending millions to negatively define him as a 'Massachusetts liberal.' When they do, Kerry will have a chance to show why those are really fighting words."
According to the logic of the Democratic Party establishment and their mouthpieces, the only candidate that can beat Bush is the one that’s just as tough as Bush. As for people who actually want to see an end to Bush’s rotten reign--people who opposed the war on Iraq and Bush's giveaways to Corporate America--they should keep quiet, while Kerry moves to the right to look for more votes.
So anyone who supports the right to abortion, a federally funded social safety net and union rights, and who opposes the occupation of Iraq and U.S. support for Israel has to set these concerns aside--while a candidate who is supposedly attractive to the widest mainstream audience is put forward.
This logic of appealing to the widest possible audience misses an important point about the American electoral system. The most important votes cast for the next president won't be counted at the ballot boxes, but have already been cast--from the coffers of Corporate America.
The Washington political system is all about money, funneled to the politicians through campaign contributions. And while Bush still has a sizeable fundraising lead when it comes to corporate cash, Kerry is getting his share. That's why, rather than being "anybody but Bush," Kerry represents the "somebody besides Bush" that the U.S. ruling class can be happy with.
full article:
www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/495/495_08_RottenKerry.shtml