Fred Hutchison
Kerry is back
Fred Hutchison
Pundit Dick Morris said of the first debate that Kerry won on style, and Bush won on substance. I believe that this is exactly correct. It was essential for Kerry to win on style if he was to stay in the race. He was almost doomed to lose on substance. The contradictory and incoherent nature of his positions made him a sitting duck in a debate on foreign policy, the war, and homeland security. But Kerry could still win on style and that is just what he did.
In this debate, Kerry did go further than ever before in distilling his views and presenting a definable position on Iraq. However, there were contradictions between what he said at one point of the debate with what he said later in the same debate. Two examples might suffice. He criticized Bush for not recruiting enough allies for the war in Iraq. Then he criticized Bush for using a multilateral approach for negotiating with North Korea instead of a unilateral approach. He asserted that he would be superior to Bush in recruiting allies. Then he made statements about the war which would tend to scare allies away. However, this level of inconsistency may be below the radar screen of most TV viewers. Kerry finally presented an understandable and debatable position which the average person can understand. Kerry supporters may take heart that the time of gigantic weekly flip flops is over. Kerry has finally found his voice. The campaign has now begun in earnest.
It was essential for Kerry to win on style for a second reason. With President Bush, what you see is what you get. He does not have to win on style because of the straightforwardness of his personality. There he is, take him or leave him. Whether one personally likes him or not has long since been decided. But Kerry's personality is concealed and inaccessible. Many of his potential supporters are leery about him because they have no sense of who he is. In this debate, a new Kerry has appeared as a phoenix risen from the campaign ashes. Kerry was unveiled as fresh and at his best and as a man with style and competence. For the first time, voters looking for an excuse to vote for him can project upon him the good qualities they hope are there.
For two months Kerry has been trailing in the polls and looking like the stumbling leader of a doomed campaign. Even the partisan liberal Michael Moore, of all people, said that the Kerry camp was running a stupid campaign. But Kerry is back in the race. It is a real election race once more. Many discontented Democrats are suddenly smiling again after two months of frowns.
Dead Man Walking
Pundit Peggy Noonan said that Kerry on the stump has appeared like a man with a low grade depression. He seemed detached from what was going on around him, like a man who is going through the motions. His words had a mock vehemence as something forced. Thus, his boisterous drone retained the sense of the perfunctory, the indifferent and the bored. But at the debate we saw a different man, a man with a light in his eye, a spring in his step, a panache, a man with a way about him. He was a man alive from the dead, who can now display his talents and political skills. In more ways than one, Kerry is back.
Kerry has a history of trailing behind in an election race and suddenly sprinting to victory in the home stretch. His legislative record is mainly one of long dormancy in which he routinely votes the party line. His attendance record at Senate committees is abysmally low. The man is terminally bored, and perhaps depressed with the dull legislative process.
The only time in his life that Kerry seemed really to be alive was in crisis, fighting in Vietnam, immersed in the hysterical anti-war movement of the Vietnam era, and fighting for his political life. It is not surprising that Kerry is stuck in Vietnam. That is when he was supremely alive and awake. Crisis wakes him up from his sad introspective sleep walking. When no crisis is available, he goes wind surfing or flying. Anything to break the deadening monotony of mere politics.
In the dog days of August, the sleep walking candidate seemed to change his positions on a weekly basis. No one was in charge of the campaign, and Kerry's handlers are a motley crew of divided opinion. One faction of handlers would send him to the stump with a message. The next week another faction would send him out with a contradictory message. New handlers would frequently be brought in to save a dying campaign and they would give him a new message of their own. Like a dead man walking, Kerry would faithfully read his script for the day and not seem to notice how it contradicted last week's script. This is why I accept Peggy Noonan's thesis of a low-grade depression. Enduring an onerous task and not noticing blatant contradictions is suddenly understandable, if the guy is sick or depressed.
The situation became hilarious when Kerry was interviewed live, such as the interview with Dianne Sawyer, and the interview with Don Imus. Kerry would seem to forget the talking points of the day and which handler had his ear at the moment, and get all jumbled up. He would mingle last weeks message with this weeks message in an incomprehensible pastiche. Dianne repeatedly asked him to clarify a particular point and each answer was more confusing than the last. Poor befuddled Imus said that he did not know what the man said.
Imagine Kerry in the White House sleepwalking, controlled by competing handlers, and only awake during crisis. Would his wife, Theresa Heinz, the lady with a whim of iron, be the ascendant power when the handlers are deadlocked? Would we have a different policy every week during a time of war? Or would the Oval Office atmosphere keep Kerry awake and free from his chronic low-grade depression?
Kerry claims that it is his style to exhaust the possibilities of diplomacy before he uses arms. But contrary to its glamorous sheen, diplomacy is an extremely tedious, cautious process, and is filled with minor setbacks. It is the art of very patient men. Neither Bush nor Kerry are patient with deadlocked diplomacy. But Bush does not fall asleep. The doldrums of diplomacy might bring back Kerry's depression. Would he lose interest and leave it to the state department? Would he dump too much of the burden in the lap of the U.N., just to get it off his back? Or would he turn to military action for psychological relief, and be a hero once more, as he was on the swift boats?
Tiberius Incarnate
Emperor Tiberius Caesar reminds me of John Kerry. Tiberius was an excellent soldier and a man of decisive action in a crisis. But he was terminally bored and depressed with life at the court. He retreated to his country estate to indulge the whims of luxury and distraction. He left one of his generals named Sejanus (a name which means two-faced) with executive power and left his manipulative wife to the political intrigues of the court. Sejanus replaced Tiberius' mild policies with a harsh and bloody oppression throughout the empire. Sejanus, in the name of Tiberius appointed Pontius Pilot as procurator of Judea. Pilot followed Sejanus harsh and cruel policies in Judea, during the ministry of Jesus Christ. Pilot crucified Christ after publicly testifying that the man was without fault.
Back in Rome, Sejanus attempted to seize power and become emperor. He had a general reign of terror involving a wide bloodletting in the planning stage. Tiberius was warned just in time. In a burst of decisive action, Tiberius moved with a group of elite soldiers and had the evil Sejanus put to death. Tiberius also had his scheming and dissolute wife put to death. Neither his wife nor Sejanus knew what hit them as the intrepid Tiberius and his commandos suddenly seized them. But Tiberius moved just in time. He came through by the skin of his teeth. It reminds me of the way Kerry slumbers through an election campaign, suddenly awakens, and at the last minute seizes election victory. The last minute victory characterizes Kerry's political career.
Tiberius called Pilot back to Rome and severely rebuked him for his cruelty to the Jews. Tiberius was not a bad man. But he allowed evil to reign for a season because he was crippled by a personal pathology. Those who wish to understand what a Kerry presidency might look light, might read about the reign of Tiberious Caesar (14 – 37AD).
By
Pundit Dick Morris said of the first debate that Kerry won on style, and Bush won on substance. I believe that this is exactly correct. It was essential for Kerry to win on style if he was to stay in the race. He was almost doomed to lose on substance. The contradictory and incoherent nature of his positions made him a sitting duck in a debate on foreign policy, the war, and homeland security. But Kerry could still win on style and that is just what he did.
In this debate, Kerry did go further than ever before in distilling his views and presenting a definable position on Iraq. However, there were contradictions between what he said at one point of the debate with what he said later in the same debate. Two examples might suffice. He criticized Bush for not recruiting enough allies for the war in Iraq. Then he criticized Bush for using a multilateral approach for negotiating with North Korea instead of a unilateral approach. He asserted that he would be superior to Bush in recruiting allies. Then he made statements about the war which would tend to scare allies away. However, this level of inconsistency may be below the radar screen of most TV viewers. Kerry finally presented an understandable and debatable position which the average person can understand. Kerry supporters may take heart that the time of gigantic weekly flip flops is over. Kerry has finally found his voice. The campaign has now begun in earnest.
It was essential for Kerry to win on style for a second reason. With President Bush, what you see is what you get. He does not have to win on style because of the straightforwardness of his personality. There he is, take him or leave him. Whether one personally likes him or not has long since been decided. But Kerry's personality is concealed and inaccessible. Many of his potential supporters are leery about him because they have no sense of who he is. In this debate, a new Kerry has appeared as a phoenix risen from the campaign ashes. Kerry was unveiled as fresh and at his best and as a man with style and competence. For the first time, voters looking for an excuse to vote for him can project upon him the good qualities they hope are there.
For two months Kerry has been trailing in the polls and looking like the stumbling leader of a doomed campaign. Even the partisan liberal Michael Moore, of all people, said that the Kerry camp was running a stupid campaign. But Kerry is back in the race. It is a real election race once more. Many discontented Democrats are suddenly smiling again after two months of frowns.
Dead Man Walking
Pundit Peggy Noonan said that Kerry on the stump has appeared like a man with a low grade depression. He seemed detached from what was going on around him, like a man who is going through the motions. His words had a mock vehemence as something forced. Thus, his boisterous drone retained the sense of the perfunctory, the indifferent and the bored. But at the debate we saw a different man, a man with a light in his eye, a spring in his step, a panache, a man with a way about him. He was a man alive from the dead, who can now display his talents and political skills. In more ways than one, Kerry is back.
Kerry has a history of trailing behind in an election race and suddenly sprinting to victory in the home stretch. His legislative record is mainly one of long dormancy in which he routinely votes the party line. His attendance record at Senate committees is abysmally low. The man is terminally bored, and perhaps depressed with the dull legislative process.
The only time in his life that Kerry seemed really to be alive was in crisis, fighting in Vietnam, immersed in the hysterical anti-war movement of the Vietnam era, and fighting for his political life. It is not surprising that Kerry is stuck in Vietnam. That is when he was supremely alive and awake. Crisis wakes him up from his sad introspective sleep walking. When no crisis is available, he goes wind surfing or flying. Anything to break the deadening monotony of mere politics.
In the dog days of August, the sleep walking candidate seemed to change his positions on a weekly basis. No one was in charge of the campaign, and Kerry's handlers are a motley crew of divided opinion. One faction of handlers would send him to the stump with a message. The next week another faction would send him out with a contradictory message. New handlers would frequently be brought in to save a dying campaign and they would give him a new message of their own. Like a dead man walking, Kerry would faithfully read his script for the day and not seem to notice how it contradicted last week's script. This is why I accept Peggy Noonan's thesis of a low-grade depression. Enduring an onerous task and not noticing blatant contradictions is suddenly understandable, if the guy is sick or depressed.
The situation became hilarious when Kerry was interviewed live, such as the interview with Dianne Sawyer, and the interview with Don Imus. Kerry would seem to forget the talking points of the day and which handler had his ear at the moment, and get all jumbled up. He would mingle last weeks message with this weeks message in an incomprehensible pastiche. Dianne repeatedly asked him to clarify a particular point and each answer was more confusing than the last. Poor befuddled Imus said that he did not know what the man said.
Imagine Kerry in the White House sleepwalking, controlled by competing handlers, and only awake during crisis. Would his wife, Theresa Heinz, the lady with a whim of iron, be the ascendant power when the handlers are deadlocked? Would we have a different policy every week during a time of war? Or would the Oval Office atmosphere keep Kerry awake and free from his chronic low-grade depression?
Kerry claims that it is his style to exhaust the possibilities of diplomacy before he uses arms. But contrary to its glamorous sheen, diplomacy is an extremely tedious, cautious process, and is filled with minor setbacks. It is the art of very patient men. Neither Bush nor Kerry are patient with deadlocked diplomacy. But Bush does not fall asleep. The doldrums of diplomacy might bring back Kerry's depression. Would he lose interest and leave it to the state department? Would he dump too much of the burden in the lap of the U.N., just to get it off his back? Or would he turn to military action for psychological relief, and be a hero once more, as he was on the swift boats?
Tiberius Incarnate
Emperor Tiberius Caesar reminds me of John Kerry. Tiberius was an excellent soldier and a man of decisive action in a crisis. But he was terminally bored and depressed with life at the court. He retreated to his country estate to indulge the whims of luxury and distraction. He left one of his generals named Sejanus (a name which means two-faced) with executive power and left his manipulative wife to the political intrigues of the court. Sejanus replaced Tiberius' mild policies with a harsh and bloody oppression throughout the empire. Sejanus, in the name of Tiberius appointed Pontius Pilot as procurator of Judea. Pilot followed Sejanus harsh and cruel policies in Judea, during the ministry of Jesus Christ. Pilot crucified Christ after publicly testifying that the man was without fault.
Back in Rome, Sejanus attempted to seize power and become emperor. He had a general reign of terror involving a wide bloodletting in the planning stage. Tiberius was warned just in time. In a burst of decisive action, Tiberius moved with a group of elite soldiers and had the evil Sejanus put to death. Tiberius also had his scheming and dissolute wife put to death. Neither his wife nor Sejanus knew what hit them as the intrepid Tiberius and his commandos suddenly seized them. But Tiberius moved just in time. He came through by the skin of his teeth. It reminds me of the way Kerry slumbers through an election campaign, suddenly awakens, and at the last minute seizes election victory. The last minute victory characterizes Kerry's political career.
Tiberius called Pilot back to Rome and severely rebuked him for his cruelty to the Jews. Tiberius was not a bad man. But he allowed evil to reign for a season because he was crippled by a personal pathology. Those who wish to understand what a Kerry presidency might look light, might read about the reign of Tiberious Caesar (14 – 37AD).
A message from Stephen Stone, President, RenewAmerica
I first became acquainted with Fred Hutchison in December 2003, when he contacted me about an article he was interested in writing for RenewAmerica about Alan Keyes. From that auspicious moment until God took him a little more than six years later, we published over 200 of Fred's incomparable essays — usually on some vital aspect of the modern "culture war," written with wit and disarming logic from Fred's brilliant perspective of history, philosophy, science, and scripture.
It was obvious to me from the beginning that Fred was in a class by himself among American conservative writers, and I was honored to feature his insights at RA.
I greatly miss Fred, who died of a brain tumor on August 10, 2010. What a gentle — yet profoundly powerful — voice of reason and godly truth! I'm delighted to see his remarkable essays on the history of conservatism brought together in a masterfully-edited volume by Julie Klusty. Restoring History is a wonderful tribute to a truly great man.
The book is available at Amazon.com.
© Fred HutchisonI first became acquainted with Fred Hutchison in December 2003, when he contacted me about an article he was interested in writing for RenewAmerica about Alan Keyes. From that auspicious moment until God took him a little more than six years later, we published over 200 of Fred's incomparable essays — usually on some vital aspect of the modern "culture war," written with wit and disarming logic from Fred's brilliant perspective of history, philosophy, science, and scripture.
It was obvious to me from the beginning that Fred was in a class by himself among American conservative writers, and I was honored to feature his insights at RA.
I greatly miss Fred, who died of a brain tumor on August 10, 2010. What a gentle — yet profoundly powerful — voice of reason and godly truth! I'm delighted to see his remarkable essays on the history of conservatism brought together in a masterfully-edited volume by Julie Klusty. Restoring History is a wonderful tribute to a truly great man.
The book is available at Amazon.com.
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)