Ciao!

Strategic voting

09.27.2004

I won't pretend to tell you how you should vote. That's, after all, entirely up to you. But I do have one observation I think few anyone-but-Bush Kerry voters — I specifically mean voters, not supporters — have considered. I realize that Kerry has actual supporters, so this doesn't apply to them. But I've heard/read much grumbling from Dems about how Kerry isn't ideal. But because overthrowing Bush is so important, voting for Kerry is the default strategy.

Now, I understand & empathize w/ strong opposition to Bush. But not the "anyone-but-Bush" argument, since I can think of many people worse than Bush (Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Dan Quayle, David Duke). But is voting for a candidate you don't support simply to overthrow a candidate you despise a good strategy? Let me elaborate.

If Bush wins, he'll automatically be gone in 4 years. He'll be a lame duck president w/ little domestic power base. After all, not only will Dems be putting up obstacles in anticipation of 2006 (mid-terms) & 2008 (probably Hillary's run), but his own party's hopeful successors will be preparing their positions. And if the RNC was any indication, that will be a more moderate domestic agenda. After all, every major speaker was publicly a social liberal (except Zell Miller, and he's a Democrat!).

If Kerry wins, he won't be a lame duck president, he'll come into office prepared to push through his "mandate" — just like every president before him. Unfortunately, it's very unclear what his mandate could be (besides simply unseating Bush). Kerry's foreign policy (the area he'll have actual control over) is still unclear. His Senate domestic record is somewhat mixed.

He could turn out to be a great president, a surprise winner. And that would be a pleasant surprise. But. If Kerry remains your second-choice candidate, and you're unhappy w/ him, be prepared to be unhappy for 8 years. Why?

Rarely has a party turned its back on the incumbent president. That means that if Kerry wins in 2004, he'll almost certainly be the party's candidate in 2008 (not Hillary, not Obama). Sure, there could be a primary season & Kerry could be unseated by a non-default choice candidate. But one of the advantages of incumbency is that your office subsidizes your political campaign. Need to make a major campaign speech in some town? Travel as president, no need to pay. Need some airtime? Give a press conference.

Assuming Kerry's the 2008 candidate, he can expect an even stronger contest against the GOP. Meaning the Dems could lose the presidency in 2008, making Kerry another Carter (except w/o the charisma). Kerry might be able to beat Bush. But could he beat Guiliani? Or McCain? Or Schwarzenegger? (OK, that'd require a constitutional amendment.)

In the end, Bush's domestic agenda is pretty much dead in the water. W/ foreign policy occupying most of his time, Bush doesn't have the political resources to get pet domestic bills passed — especially through a divided Senate where moderate Republicans increasingly dominate party ranks. That's why the GOP focuses most of its pro-Bush support on the war on terror. McCain, who leads the GOP senators opposing Bush on domestic issues, isn't worried. Republican legislators in 2004-2008 would be more free of Bush than in 2000-2004.

And it's still unclear just what Kerry would do differently than Bush in Iraq. He certainly won't pull all our troops much sooner. He might help in mending fences w/ France, Germany, Russia. But his statement about a coalition of the "coerced & bribed" won't endear him to Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland. And how well he'll work w/ Iraqi civilian authorities his campaign called "US puppets" is an open question.

My point is: If you're voting against Bush, by all means do so. But if your motivation is "anyone-but-Bush", then you've no personal loyalty to Kerry. Why not support a third party candidate that better represents your views? Bush will be gone in 4 years regardless, but your votes would send a strong message to the Democratic Party to shift further towards your issues (the environment, multilateralism, gay rights, health care, etc.) in 2008. Essentially, this is long-term strategic voting. Of course, if you genuinely like Kerry as your first choice candidate, you should by all means vote for him.

-----
ADDENDUM: Let me bring the point home. If you're unhappy w/ Kerry, or the Democratic Party in general, a Kerry victory means you'll most likely have to live w/ that choice until 2012. If your primary motivation is simply to remove Bush, that will happen in 2008, even w/ a Bush victory. And if Kerry continues to sink in the polls, this might be a good opportunity to shake up the Democratic Party leadership by pushing it towards the Greens (like Dean) or the Social-Democratics (like Kucinich). During the primaries, Lieberman (who I voted for) argued that more than anything else, this election year was a fight for the heart & soul of the Democratic Party. I still believe he's right.

Posted by Miguel at 12:09 PM

Comments

Posted by: sara at September 27, 2004 04:34 PM

Posted by: mark at September 27, 2004 07:28 PM

Posted by: tom at September 27, 2004 09:37 PM