Stephen VasciannieTHE MUCH vaunted third debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry has now come to pass. Many of us awaited this debate with great interest, for a variety of reasons. Conventional wisdom has it that John Kerry won the first two debates, so the interest was not generated so much by the view that the third debate could clinch the series for one protagonist or the other. Nor was the special interest prompted by the idea that the contenders would be re-creating themselves in any substantial way when they faced the camera.
The debating styles and inclinations of both men are by now well-known to all who are interested in American politics, so not much could have been expected on the personality front. Similarly, it cannot be that we waited with anticipation for an October surprise: the third debate was dedicated in large part to domestic issues, and with respect to these issues the policy prescriptions on both sides have already been well-ventilated.
For Kerry, there are distinct areas of weakness within the American polity: health care, and in particular matters of medical insurance, continue to prompt grave concern among the American middle class heartland that could swing the election to the Democrats. Likewise, the Democrats believe they have a vote winner when they hammer home the inequitable features of the so-called Bush Tax Cut for the rich: at a time when the budget deficit looms large, granting tax relief to income-earners pulling in more than US$200,000 per annum is not beyond fair criticism.
INCUMBENT DISADVANTAGE
In presidential debates, the incumbent will probably always be at a disadvantage on domestic issues; for it is open to the challenger to convert the election into a referendum on presidential policies for the last four years. This factor was skilfully used by the then challenger Ronald Reagan when he asked rhetorically -- contra Jimmy Carter -- are you better off today than you were four years ago? So, for President Bush, the main question for the third debate was how well his domestic policies would stand up to public scrutiny when cast in the bright light of Kerry's criticisms.
Against this background, the Bush strategy appears to have had three prongs. First, Bush made pronouncements in defence of market mechanisms, as this is consistent with Republican perspectives in favour of individualism and freedom: always remind the audience that big government is not a good thing. Secondly, Bush took the view that if the contender's criticism strikes a point of vulnerability, he would shift the argument. Thus, in the third debate, when faced with strong points concerning the performance of the Bush administration with respect to unemployment and the availability of jobs, the President headed for arguments about education and training. Similarly, when presented with the vexed question of affirmative action, the President again took cover by referring to points on education. Education is indeed linked to almost all social issues, but it does not mean that other social issues can always be solved exclusively by reference to educational opportunities. Attack as Defence.
THIRD BUSH STRATEGY
The third discernible Bush strategy to counter Kerry was based on the premise that attack is the best form of defence. Thus, when faced with the aforementioned rich person's tax cut, the President drove hard at John Kerry's voting record on taxes -- you remember, the suggestion was that Kerry is the "liberal" Senator from Massachusetts, outside the mainstream, enthusiastically out there in left field. It is understandable that the President would wish to label his opponent, and to emphasise inconsistencies between the Kerry rhetoric in the course of a campaign, and the Kerry voting practice as a Senator. In the debate, this made it clear that the incumbent wants the election to be about more than the Bush record. The risk for Bush here, however, is that it makes him look a little 'unpresidential': at some points in the third debate, he appeared to have cast aside the presidential mantle, and to have jumped into the wrestling ring.
Some voters will want the President to remain slightly above the fray, concentrating on policy issues, rather than on Kerry's perceived personality flaws.
MUCH INTEREST
So then, why was there so much interest in the third debate? The answer to this turns, I believe, on the degree of division in the United States. The battle lines are clearly drawn, and the partisans are anxious to ensure that their gladiator does not fall flat on his face. The undecided -- if one can really be undecided at this stage -- have been drawn into the battle, for they are hoping for last-minute pearls of wisdom to swing them one way or the other. The debates represented high drama -- and they forced the contenders to take a position on policy matters in the plain view of millions of voters. This is an important component of the democratic process, no doubt. Incidentally, to the extent that we can really talk about winners in this context, the result was a whitewash.
Stephen Vasciannie is professor of international law, head of the Department of Government, UWI, and a consultant in the Attorney- General's chambers.
