As long as the fear factor remains in the consciousness of the American voter — how can it not be with the yellow to orange light always on? — will always be insecure and choose a leader whose primary objective is making the nation safer. On the surface it would seem that the incumbent would therefore win by a landslide, inasmuch as in an apparent state of war, few would be willing to change horses in midstream.

However, in this election year the traditional standard does not ring true. To begin with the state of war is not as dire as one would expect. With the security alerts on, people are encouraged to go to work or shop as though things were normal as we cannot allow terrorists to disrupt our way of life even though that is precisely what terrorists do. In contradicting itself, the administration, tells us that the war in Iraq has kept the terrorists busy abroad terrorizing foreigners and our brave troops; therefore, it is more like the World Wars whereby the home front is protected by the vast oceans. Nor can there be any true urgency since the president is intent on the non sequitur of making his massive tax cuts permanent. Neither has there been any call for sacrifice other than — after all it is voluntary and no concern of the vast majority — the armed services because we do not want to fall into the pit of a wartime economy of food rations and gadget shortages.

The incumbent, who would normally be in a commanding electoral position, is under duress by those who are increasingly questioning his competence to lead, owing to innumerable pitfalls in his war policy. He had the world on his side on 9/11 and the nation when he took action in Afghanistan until the resolve was reduced to an impasse because all along Iraq had been planted in his mind. Despite the initial unpopularity of going to war in Iraq without finishing the job in Afghanistan, his administration, drawing on the fear factor and trumped up intelligence, manipulated, not only him, but the public successfully, which in turn put fear into congressional opponents of the war to approve intimidating the UN to pass a resolution and then subsequently ignoring it by unilateral invasion. Thinking this would be but another hundred hour war, the public was in flag-waving ecstasy. Though some weeks had passed before Saddam’s statue was toppled, most Americans were eager to crown George king.

Over a year later, with the war still raging, the royal garments tattered, the crown tarnished, the public has began to question the integrity and depth of the economy, the enormous debt and the quality of jobs. The public has lost its appetite for the war while the esophagus is wrenched by the morsel of futility. Again the administration mobilized its old diversionary tactics by such things as a marriage amendment, fuzzy affirmative action, the right to life, virtue in the trickle down theory of tax-cuts, painting Kerry a flip-flopper, Democrats weak on defense requiring a permission slip from France, liberals don’t go to church, yet espouse pacifism, backdoor support of Nader, solidify health care by medical savings accounts, bolster social security by privatization, going to Mars, missile defense priority, dependence on “Old Europe” allies is passé, ad infinitum.

The public is beginning to turn its attention to a fresher perspective on the problems that beset the nation. Just as Eisenhower was able to muster a truce in Korea, Kerry believes his exit strategy can be accomplished by mending previous policies and garnering support from traditional allies and NATO to share the burden in Iraq. The war on terrorism is not the exclusive domain of the US but of the world, entailing global effort to defeat it. The economic recovery is deceptive because its traditional industrial base has been raided by multinational corporations and outsourcing, causing low quality jobs. The debt and deficits are sky-rocketing because of an irresponsible tax structure. The spiraling costs of oil is a result of the lack of national commitment to energy independence. The threat of terrorism can be reduced by a more humanitarian foreign policy of diplomacy without having to relinquish the defense of the country. Aye, it appears the incumbent has reason to worry.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: August 7, 2004.