Despite the press's obsession with the internal
workings of the campaigns, presidential elections
are first and foremost about the candidates.
Americans rightly want to know who
their president is and what he's made of.
The 2004 election is no exception.
At this writing, the outcome is still in doubt, though
President Bush opened up a small, but significant, lead in
the aftermath of the two party conventions.
By the time many of you read this, the election may be
history -- so I write with some trepidation. I can only hope
that what seems so relevant now will seem just as relevant
after the returns are in. I'm betting it will.
Elsewhere in this magazine Bruce Reed and I lay out a
compelling case for firing Bush and hiring a New Democrat
in his place.
But whether John Kerry wins will depend on whether
the Democratic nominee convinces enough voters that he
has the "toughness to govern."
In simple terms, as we enter the homestretch of the election,
Americans need to believe Kerry is strong enough and
tough enough to be commander in chief and to act in the
national interest, even when that requires going against an
orthodoxy imposed by a powerful or friendly constituency.
"Toughness" or "strength" is, in my view, the most
important characteristic that voters seek in a president.
Crossing that toughness threshold is the prerequisite for a
challenger to have his arguments heard during the campaign.
That's particularly true this year, with the country at
war and terrorists seeking to attack Americans at any opportunity.
In the post-9/11 world, security has become the overriding
issue in national politics -- and a candidate's toughness
is determined by how he handles that issue.
In the 2002 Senate elections, Democrats tried to avoid
the security issue, and they paid the price for not passing the
toughness test. As President Clinton said afterward, given
the choice between "strong and wrong" and "right and
weak," voters choose strong and wrong almost every time.
"Strong and wrong" might as well be Bush's campaign
slogan. In the period following this year's party conventions,
he led by nearly 30 percentage-points on the question of
which candidate is a "strong and decisive" leader -- even
though most voters do not like the direction that Bush is
leading the country. Kerry's problem is not unique. That
toughness-to-govern issue has tormented Democratic candidates
for nearly half a century.
That's a burden we must bear,
because we are, in essence, a constituency-
based party. The stereotypes
our candidates must dispel
every day are that we care too little
about national security and values
and too much about government
and taxes.
Unsuccessful Democratic candidates
-- like Walter Mondale and
Michael Dukakis -- have been strangled by those stereotypes.
But successful candidates have taken them head-on
and dispelled them.
John F. Kennedy was plagued by fears that, as the first
Catholic president, he would answer to the Vatican, not to
the American people. So he confronted a group of Baptist
ministers in Houston and convinced them and the voters
that he would always put our country's interests first. That
showed toughness toward one of his own constituencies.
Clinton, facing a perception by voters that Democrats
never saw a government program they wouldn't expand,
challenged his party and our country "to end welfare as we
know it," showing voters he was "a different kind of
Democrat." It worked.
More than two decades ago, the late Gillis W. Long of
Louisiana, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus
and my old political mentor, told me our party must
demonstrate both the "compassion to care" and the
"toughness to govern."
Democrats, Long said, never have much trouble showing
compassion. But demonstrating the toughness to govern
has been much more difficult for the party. That has
been a major impediment for Democrats who seek the
presidency.
Demonstrating the toughness to govern, in a nutshell,
is Kerry's challenge as the 2004 campaign enters its final
weeks. This year, unlike 2000, voters are putting leadership
skills ahead of issues in choosing a candidate.
Kerry alone must meet that challenge. He must demonstrate,
in the words of Clinton's convention speech, that
"strength and wisdom are not opposing values." No surrogate
or campaign consultant can do it for him.
If he does, he'll refocus the campaign on the fundamentals
-- the condition of the country and Bush's own leadership
failures -- and he'll be well-positioned to score a
come-from-behind victory.
