Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

While John Kerry possessed establishment credentials as a longtime senator, he had begun the 2004 primary season near the back of the pack.  As a means of stirring up interest and appearing hip he was even photographed transporting a motorcycle to NBS Studios in Burbank for a Tonight show interview with Jay Leno.

In addition to possessing a large and seasoned organization while receiving major campaign impetus by appearances from his senior Massachusetts senatorial colleague Ted Kennedy, another element was added to provide spark on the campaign trail.  

Kerry began to resemble Howard Dean in style and substance, excoriating Bush for his Iraq blunders and sounding populist in tone, adopting a rapid fire Harry Truman style of "throw the rascals out".

As victories mounted Kerry would take advantage of larger television audience opportunities at primary night speeches by urging citizens to contact his website at JohnKerry.com, a clear recognition of Dean's Internet success.

Kerry also challenged Bush's claim to superiority in fighting the war on terror against any Democratic Party challenger, punctuating his rhetoric with a challenge to "Bring it on!" in reference to the national security debate.

Once the nomination was secured the Kerry fire, spurred on by populist grassroots support, vanished as quickly as it had surfaced.  A tired media explanation was given - now that Kerry had captured the nomination it was time to soften his message to appeal to moderate swing Democratic voters and independents.

This same argument had been raised in 1984 when New Democrat Gary Hart challenged establishmentarian Walter Mondale.  

When Mondale made a comeback after stumbling badly in the Iowa caucuses with a victory in the New Hampshire primary over Hart, an elated George Will explained that now the Democrats had a chance against Reagan in the fall because a seasoned establishment politician was now likely to become the Democratic standard bearer.

George Will was surely a pundit who had the success of the Democratic Party at heart.  This had been evidenced four years earlier when, without batting an eye, Will initially helped prepare Republican nominee Ronald Reagan for his sole debate of the 1980 election with incumbent President Jimmy Carter.  

Following that effort Will then appeared on a panel following the debate and, surprise to end all surprises, told his audience that Reagan had won the encounter.

As for 1984, as soon as the November election concluded with Reagan securing a landslide victory in which he won every state but Mondale's Minnesota along with the District of Columbia, the same prognosticators who had, during primary season, urged Democrats to select the seasoned Mondale over the untested Hart to provide an opportunity for a better November showing, provided their assessment.

The 1984 post-election media commentary served as a working model for later presidential contests as well.  After stressing the need for the Democrats to nominate a seasoned candidate, the post-mortem conclusion was that the party had failed to appeal to the broad segments of independent and swing voters that held the keys to victory.  

The claim was amusing in that even Reagan's advisers admitted the lack of a cohesive theme in a campaign that boiled down to the big three of mom, apple pie and the flag.  As for the need of a centrist message, Reagan's political hero was Calvin Coolidge, whose operating philosophy was dated even during his period in office in the twenties.

Careful analysis reveals that the media two-step of explaining what a Democrat needs to win, then concluding that he was outside the mainstream following a subsequent loss, is a non sequitur absurdity rather than an explanation of voter behavior.  The reason why the mainstream media can successfully exploit such simplistic and contradictory nonsense is due to the absence of in depth discussion in the political process.

After all, as the sages of Madison Avenue tell us, people have short attention spans.  As Andy Warhol revealed, fame is so fleeting that it expires after fifteen minutes.

The American campaign tradition at political conventions generally finds the outside party seeking power using its opportunity to deliver stinging partisan commentary explaining how the incumbent party has failed and why it does not deserve another four years in power.  Something happened to the previously fiery John Kerry on the way to the Boston convention, however, as a different approach was employed.

A major reason why many Democrats supported Kerry was the belief that this time the party was ready to carry the fight to the Republicans.  Kerry fostered this idea with his fiery primary night speeches featuring the peroration "Bring it on!" in reference to Republican claims that Bush and Cheney were superior to the Democrats in the field of fighting terrorism and protecting America.

Given the foregoing, many Democrats believed that the party's convention in Boston would feature fiery rhetoric from speakers delineating differences with Republicans on how to govern America, hopefully capped by a strong Kerry acceptance speech denouncing Cheney-Bush, as exemplified by his challenging "Bring it on!" primary rhetoric.

In that party nominating conventions no longer make the once ultimate decision of deciding standard bearers, given the evolving primary structure, and with even the choice of running mate no longer at issue with Kerry having announced the choice of John Edwards beforehand, the conclave could best serve the interest of the Democrats by showing them at their fighting and determined best.

A disappointing thing happened en route to Boston for those expecting a well-coordinated attack on calamitous Cheney-Bush policies; this expectation never materialized.  What evolved was an endless series of cheerleading testimonials that, had listeners tuned in unaware, would have believed that they were observing an Amway or Mary Kay Cosmetics rally.

Cosmetic showmanship was substituted for informative message presentation.  Kerry's potentially defining moment was a "mother of all photo opportunities" with an introduction as a super dad by a loving daughter and an assembly of the largest presentation of military figures perhaps ever assembled on one stage.  

Kerry embraced the military theme by launching into his acceptance speech with a salute and a statement that he was "reporting for duty."

Prior to the convention the Democrats, according to national polls, had the momentum with Kerry ahead of Bush.  Conventional thinking presented a scenario of Kerry enhancing his lead since parties tend to receive a post-convention bounce.  

That result stems from the fact that this is the largest amount of uninterrupted national television exposure either of the major organizations would receive during the entire campaign.

A puzzling thing happened to the Democrats following the Boston convention that required immediate explanation.  The post-convention bounce that was anticipated based on past history failed to materialize.  

Some Democratic pundits attempted to clarify this factor, noting that with all the coverage the campaign had received, augmented by such early starting points and selections of the major party rivals, undecided voters were said to be at an all-time low.  

According to these theorists, Kerry and Bush were grappling with some 50,000 key undecided voters located in battleground states.  The focus, accordingly, on the part of both parties was to woo these individuals, who held the key to victory in November.  

Once one accepted the foregoing premise, a corollary was provided.  Democratic Party strategists explained this as the key element defining the accent on vanilla presentations in an arena more historically associated with red meat exhortations.  

The carefully crafted explanation from party chieftains that infuriated so many in progressive ranks was that the cautionary strategy was designed to prevent erosion of potential Democratic votes.  

The latest rendering of the "don't rock the boat" rationale, that sent so many voters to the sidelines throughout the years and others into the camps of Ralph Nader and others protesting a cyclical status quo being presented as electoral competition, had been asserted.

Stressing the sophistication of voter behavior analysis, the Democrats were said to have conducted numerous focus group discussions.  The term "focus groups" would redound for the remainder of the electoral cycle and presented as a rationale for inaction when solid and concrete attack politics would be otherwise anticipated.

The bearers of conventional wisdom within Democratic Party circles held up a collective hand in the manner of a traffic cop at a busy intersection of a large city.  

Focus group participants were frowning on negative politics of any sort.  They represented the venerable 50,000 swing voters who would decide the election.  In short, a few disparaging words and they would be hopelessly lost!  

A funny thing then happened on the way to the Republican Convention in New York's Madison Square Garden.  Mainstream media columnists and commentators had long saluted Karl Rove as a reigning genius of political consulting.  

Provided that the Democrats conducting the focus groups were accurate and swing voters were in an angry and impatient mood regarding negative campaigning, one could thereby anticipate Rove and his party to travel a similar strategic path.  

The same Republicans that had numerous vulnerabilities that had gone basically unaddressed by the Democrats in Boston hurled the red meat.  It had been, ironically, the Democrats who had unfurled before the nation a feel good mother, apple pie and salute the flag strategy representative of Reagan's reelection campaign of 1984.  

Dick Cheney, who had presided over the launching of a war forbidden by international law against a nation that was no threat to America, then steered a no bid contract for services in Iraq to the Halliburton conglomerate that he had previously headed.  

Cheney was also responsible for the tax cuts earmarked for the wealthy that had helped generate a debt of $7 trillion and steadily climbing, was in a fighting mood and vented his spleen on John Kerry specifically and the Democrats in general.

Unable to run on his record for the foregoing reasons and others like them, Cheney played the demagogic 9/11 game.  Kerry and the Democrats are weak on security and cannot protect America in the manner that he and stalwart partner Bush could.  A vote for Kerry was a vote to jeopardize America's security.

Loyal spear-carrier Zell Miller had sounded the same theme in the convention's keynote address and, when held to account for his words, came unglued.  The Georgia senator, who had written a book detailing why he bolted the Democrats for the Republican Party, reacted in the manner of the legendary crazy uncle in the attic.  

In an interview with Chris Matthews, when unable to defend his point, Miller lamented that it was too bad that times had changed and he could not challenge the MSNBC commentator to a duel.  Miller had rhetorically asked if John Kerry would defend America with "spitballs."  

This statement prompted Matthews to ask if he really believed that John Kerry would "defend America with spitballs," which was greeted with immediate apoplexy and a longing to return to the good old days of dueling.

The volatile Miller was also intellectually demolished on CNN by Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff and Jeff Greenfield.  Miller became flustered when asked why, after introducing John Kerry as a "war hero" two years earlier, he was being denounced from the Garden podium for events that occurred many years beforehand.  

The CNN battered the ill tempered Republican convert on other intellectual fronts as well.  He was reminded that his angry attack on Kerry for referring to America's presence in Iraq as "occupiers" was a term that had also been used by none other than Dick Cheney.  

Miller was also reminded that the Kerry votes he had denounced for leaving America unprepared for war were cast during peacetime and that many had related to outdated weapons systems targeted for extinction.  

When cornered a flustered Miller clutched a paper he held with tense tightness and declared that the facts were contained there and plain for all to see.  He did not see fit to reveal any, apparently preferring interested listeners to engage in self-help for their learning benefit.

A Republican Party trumpeting its "diversity" at its convention turned from a volcanic and bombastic former Democrat who left the party for what he perceived as a dangerous lurch to the left to a steroid-pumped movie star that, if Orrin Hatch has his way and a constitutional amendment can be passed allowing a foreign born citizen to become president, will hopefully occupy the White House.

Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared as a representative of the party's "moderate wing" and therein a proponent of inclusion.  Forgetting about the massive debt that the Cheney-Bush Junta had achieved in four years, California's governor exhorted America's voters with the peroration, "Don't be an economic girlie man!"  

Translation: Arnold likes the tax cuts, enabling him to continue his luxury of cigar smoking and perhaps enabling him to purchase yet another Hummer and, if particularly fortunate, another jet.  The evangelizing ended with Schwarzenegger shouting, "Four more years, four more years!"  

While media comedians such as Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Jay Leno poked fun at the absurd Republican circus, most mainstream reporters took the proceedings seriously.  

Chris Matthews redeemed himself for his behavior toward new Republican Miller in a discussion with Mike Barnicle.  After the media had dutifully noted the marked disinclination of voters toward negative politicking, a new dish of ground hash was served without so much as an explanation.

The Republicans had acquitted themselves with their toughness as Dick Cheney once more demonstrated that quality for which the media had saluted him four years earlier - gravitas!  That precious quality of intellectual depth and seriousness had once more been manifested through a Cheney hatchet job that defied reality.  

Americans were anything but safer under Cheney-Bush, as manifested by ports easily reachable by terrorists and airports through which experimenters could smuggle box cutters with relative ease.  Rural communities in Cheney's Wyoming were better funded than New York, where the 9/11 attacks occurred.  Meanwhile nagging questions about the 9/11 attacks continued to remain unresolved.  

All this was lost on Matthews and Barnicle as they saluted Cheney's virtuoso effort.  The commentators virtually salivated as they praised Cheney's speech.  They likened John Kerry to a felled deer strung up and tied to a truck being transported to Madison Square Garden.  Lest we use that word so often reserved for Karl Rove?  In short, Cheney's speech was a stroke of genius.  

What about the crucial 50,000 voters who abhorred negativism and would decide the forthcoming election?  The media dodged that question and instead served up the next dose of mainstream media news.  Bolstered by tough convention rhetoric spearheaded by Cheney, the Republican ticket was, according to mainstream media polls, now ahead of Kerry and Cheney by a double-digit margin.

Meanwhile, as the latest media hash was being served, there was a populist uprising on the streets of New York on Sunday, the day before the convention began.  The less said about that the better.  

It was, after all, not mainstream and, as friends of the Democratic Party such as Bill O'Reilly and George Will cautioned, following such a dangerous pattern would turn off all of those swing voters that would be lost through such negative behavior, save the speechifying of Dick Cheney, which embodied genius.

During the Sunday demonstrations Alex Jones, a proud media heretic, thrust a microphone in Michael Moore's direction and asked him about 9/11.  Moore looked embarrassed in stating that it would not be polite to talk about the subject at that point.  After all, it might lose votes, as the reigning mainstream media warned Democrats.