« Rhetorica update... | Main | : You ain't seen nasty yet... »

March 14, 2004

: Calling for a duel...

A political survey that I've cited here recently suggests that citizens find debates politically useful. Do politicians find debates politically useful?

I would say politicians find them primarily rhetorically useful. For example, one may score points merely by calling for a debate that one knows an opponent will surely decline. We saw this during the 2000 election when Orrin Hatch suggested the candidates tour New Hampshire together in a bus and hold debates at every stop. That was actually a very interesting idea, but it was also political nonsense because there was no way the front runners--Bush and McCain--would ever agree to it. By proposing such a thing, underdog Hatch could momentarily tweak the front runners' noses. And that was the primary (rhetorical) purpose of the suggestion.

John Kerry is using the same tactic. He's called for a series of monthly debates with Bush beginning now and lasting until the election. He claims Americans are tired of the sniping and are ready to get down to the issues:

"We confront big issues--as big as any issues in the history of our nation--and they call for a new and historic commitment to a real and informed exchange of ideas," said Mr. Kerry, the four-term Massachusetts Democrat who has all but locked up his party's presidential nomination. "I believe the American people are hungry for a genuine conversation about the fundamental questions before us, and they are ready to begin this now."

Americans may be hungry for genuine conversation about the issues. Whether a series of debates will provide such a thing is, well, debatable. What they would surely get is a dramatic conversation in a series of debates, but this can be politically useful, too. In any case, I also do not suppose that Kerry believes Bush would ever agree to such a thing. As in the Hatch example, Bush has everything to lose exposing himself to a verbal marathon.

Unlike Hatch, Kerry is no underdog in this contest if we believe the early polls. Kerry has far more to gain by luring Bush into a communicative environment that would be difficult to control with the precision Bush's campaign managers would want. Hence, the reply:

Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said Mr. Kerry had run 17 negative spots--a total of 15,000 times--and spent $6.3 million attacking the president in the primaries. He also noted that Mr. Kerry called his Republican rivals "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen" last week.

"Senator Kerry should finish the debate with himself before he starts trying to explain his positions to the voters," said Mr. Schmidt, who frequently describes Mr. Kerry as a flip-flopper on issues.

Good reply (in a purely strategic sense). And what this points up is that the call to debate and the decline are simply more sniping in what will shape up to be a long campaign season.

Posted by acline at March 14, 2004 9:10 AM | | Spotlight