John Kerry in Peterborough

Since most of you don't have the good fortune to live in New Hampshire, you probably don't have the kind of access to presidential candidates that we take for granted up here. Four years ago I got to see my first New Hampshire presidential campaign, and I enjoyed it so much that I intend to be a lot more active this time around. I thought I'd share that with the rest of you by sending out these occasional reports.

Yesterday (Wednesday April 2) I saw my first candidate of the season, John Kerry. He was in Peterborough, holding a meeting in the basement of the town library. It was packed. I estimated that about 150 people were in the room. Most seemed to be from Peterborough itself, which is a fairly small town, but several of the questioners identified themselves as coming from Nashua, about 30 miles away.

I am in something of a dilemma as I approach the 2004 presidential season. I really, really want to beat George Bush this time around, because I see America moving closer and closer to a 1984-style system of perpetual war abroad and police state at home. On the other hand, I feel betrayed by the Democrats in Congress (like Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, and Graham) who haven't taken a firm principled stand either for peace or for civil liberties. (All of them voted for the Patriot Act and all but Graham voted to authorize the war in Iraq.). Part of me wants 2004 to be the Democrats' Goldwater year, where we get soundly beaten, but stake out a principled position that can gain converts election-by-election until we take back the country -- the danger being that democracy in America may not last long enough for us to take it back.

So I'm looking for two things as I examine the candidates: the right views, and the political skills to get elected. In 2000, Bill Bradley best matched my views, but after going to a Bradley rally I decided he was the least skillful politician I had ever seen, so I didn't vote for him. I don't think he could have gotten half a million more votes than Bush, as Gore did. Going into 2004, I'm most attracted to Dean because he has taken the clearest anti-war position, but I'll need to see if he can pass the Bradley test.

The Kerry event was scheduled to run from 12:30 to 1:30, but it started twenty minutes late. (I can report from 2000 that this isn't unusual; presidential candidates schedule meetings back-to-back and always run further and further behind as the day goes on.) He was introduced by Mark Fernald, who was the 2002 Democratic nominee for governor. (All the major Democrats lost in New Hampshire in 2002.) Fernald was brief and focused on Kerry's biography -- Vietnam war veteran, anti-Vietnam War activist, senator. Kerry spoke for about twenty minutes, and then took questions -- about ten of them -- until he ran out of time and had to be off to his next meeting.

I wanted to hear Kerry explain his recent voting record, which he did. I wasn't completely satisfied with his answers, but at least he addressed the right issues. He brought up his vote (in October) to authorize Bush to invade Iraq. He says he wanted the President to have maximal negotiating power in assembling a coalition and putting pressure on Saddam, but that he expected war to be the last resort. He was disappointed both in the administration's bungling of diplomacy and with the rush to war before all other options had been exhausted.

I asked what was probably the most hostile question of the day: "When you voted for the Patriot Act, did you understand what it would do to civil liberties?" He replied that many supporters of the Patriot Act worried about the possibility of abuse, and that is why the Act has a sunset clause -- it expires in December 2005 unless renewed by Congress. He added that one of his reasons for wanting to be president is "so that I can appoint an attorney general who has read the Constitution and believes in the Constitution" -- a line he delivered so well that I ended up applauding myself.

In general Kerry sounded two themes. (At this stage of the campaign, all you can expect are themes. Specific proposals won't start turning up until the fall, probably. Four years ago, Bush didn't have a tax-cut proposal yet; basically he was running on two words -- compassionate conservatism.) In foreign policy he wants a return to internationalism rather than unilateralism. He mentioned not only war-and-peace issues, but also the global warming treaty, AIDS in Africa, and several other international agreements trashed by the Bush administration. He wants to mend our relationships with our allies, which he claims Bush cannot do because our allies will never trust him again.

Domestically, he appeals to the optimism and idealism of traditional liberalism. This was introduced by the best line of the day. He recalled the Shaw quote that Bobby Kennedy often used: "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?'. I dream of things that never were and say 'Why not?'" And then Kerry said: "Today we have an administration that doesn't even ask 'Why?' " He then went into a litany of of why-nots: why can't we provide health care for everyone, for example. He didn't say how he would do these things, or even that he would do them at all, but I found that I appreciated having the issues raised in an open-ended way. Clinton and Gore, in my opinion, were too quick to jump into programmatic details, as if they were embarrassed to appear idealistic. But I think liberalism needs to stay connected to its dreams if it is going to raise any energy in the here-and-now. As election day gets closer I'm going to expect more programs and policies out of Kerry, but for right now a list of why-nots is fine.

Kerry's main line of attack against Bush centers on the theme of squandered resources and wasted opportunities. As a sponsor of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, Kerry communicates a certain personal offense at Bush's quick destruction of the budget surplus achieved under Clinton. (Surprisingly, Kerry sounds more effective claiming the Clinton record -- budget surplus, low inflation, low unemployment, high growth -- than Gore did.) He also faults Bush for so quickly dissipating the international good will that the US enjoyed after 9/11.

In summary, I can report that Kerry passes the Bradley test. He is a very skillful politician. He connects with a room well, answers questions crisply, and (unlike Gore) is able to put forward larger themes that don't just sound like a shopping list of little ideas. His biography works well in a campaign context. His Vietnam record (3 purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star) contrasts nicely with Bush's apparent desertion from the National Guard and insulates him from the typical liberal-wimp charge. (He wouldn't look as ridiculous in a tank as Dukakis did.) And being a founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gives him some insulation against the charge that he isn't anti-war enough.

Still, I find myself wondering where Kerry is going to plant himself and say, "This is my issue." His war position, for example, is too fuzzy. This may be the result of having a complex, un-sound-bite-able view. Or he could just be trying to have it both ways and hope the war is forgotten by the time the campaign gets serious.

I also wish I had a candidate who wouldn't run from the label "liberal". Kerry claims (with some justification) to be liberal on some issues and conservative on others (like wanting to balance the budget). Part of my Goldwater-year vision is a candidate who claims the word "liberal" and redefines it for a new generation -- as Goldwater redefined "conservative" -- rather than running away from it. Kerry isn't doing that.