Election 04 > Issues > The War

This is the biggest, most obvious, most unique issue in any wartime presidential election. In 1864 McClellan ran against Lincoln on an anti-war platform, and lost miserably. The troops suffering in the field voted 90% for Lincoln. In 1916 Woodrow Wilson won reelection on the platform "He Kept Us Out of War" - but within months of the election, America was at war. America was so committed to World War II in 1944 that Roosevelt won more votes than he had in 1940. In 1968 the U.S. was embroiled in its most unpopular war to date, a conflict that claimed millions of Vietnamese lives and tens of thousands of Americans. Strangely, inexplicably, neither party ran against the war. This situation is repeating itself, where a war decried as unnecessary and unjust by a large percentage of Americans is supported by both political parties. Garry Wills noted in "Nixon Agonistes" that the biggest issue in the 1968 elections was not even a point of contention. As if to confirm the parties' 1968 decisions, however, McGovern was unable to turn a promise of withdrawal into victory in 1972.

How does this apply to 2004? Because there's an elephant in the room: both candidates agree on the most divisive and immediate issue in American politics since the Vietnam War. Bush, for obvious reasons, can't politically afford to back down. Kerry may believe that he's profiting from his stance, since those who oppose the war are generally ready to vote for him simply because his name isn't "George", and he may be able to gain votes of those who are pro-war but dislike Bush for other reasons. However, a more strategic reason is that security has been the Achilles heel of the Democratic Party since 1950, despite the fact that Democratic presidents led us into World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Being "soft on terrorists" is not a description that Dems want to stick, considering that "soft on communism" proved to be an effective epithet right through the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Political calculus aside, who is going to do a better job with the war? Kerry says he'll get more help from other nations. That's doubtful - Kofi Annan can't even convince Old Europe to protect UN installments in Iraq, so Kerry won't do any better. Bush also holds the Ace of Spades - Colin Powell - who is more effective (in spite of Bush) than the last half dozen Secretaries of State put together.

For those of us who want out of Iraq, will Kerry get us there any sooner? I think yes, though it might be pretty marginal. Both candidates would have to get us out by the mid-term elections or risk losing big in both houses. The risk of a Bush presidency is that he keeps expanding the war on terror, like trying to put out a fire by pouring oil on it. The risk with Kerry is that he'll oscillate between toughness and withdrawal, like Clinton. So do want to hand the wheel to a driver who's chugging down the wrong side of the road, or one swerving all over it?