As election time approaches, all disheartened and disillusioned with the current administration are dealing with a difficult internal conflict. On one hand, we have to work to remove Bush from office. On the other, our efforts appear frighteningly fruitless. We can’t just avoid the reality of the current national climate, but we obviously should not give up hope for the future of the country.
Whatever group you fall into on the anti-Bush spectrum-Democrat, liberal, ultra-liberal, people who don’t have proper healthcare, people who know soldiers in Iraq who fear for their lives, and people who just can’t stand the man-unite for a realistic approach in 2004.
Kerry is our man. Even if you supported Dean, or Al Sharpton for that matter, don’t perpetuate the cycle of divisiveness that has been crippling the Democratic Party for years by not supporting Kerry, the one man who could improve the situation of our country.
Fortunately, the Democrats’ tendency to attack each other has been restrained in the current election. A couple of years ago, I did some grassroots work on New York state gubernatorial candidate Carl McCall’s campaign. That Democratic primary was a face-off between McCall and Andrew Cuomo (son of ex-Governor Mario Cuomo), who both hoped to challenge the Republican incumbent George Pataki.
In this experience, I encountered first-hand the tension that threatens to erode the Democratic Party from within. My boss used to send me to Pataki’s and Cuomo’s fundraisers and press conferences to gather rather superficial information regarding the opponents’ campaign tactics. I was prohibited from lying about who I represented when I was asked to identify myself at these events. Though Pataki’s staffers tended to greet me in a civil way, my experiences at Cuomo’s events tended to be utter disasters. One day after almost being arrested at a “Women for Cuomo” fundraiser, I stormed back to McCall headquarters and, in the heat of the moment, actually vowed to vote for Pataki if Cuomo received the nomination.
Eventually the race reached the point where many colleagues in my office were functioning under the same premise-that Cuomo was the real enemy. Luckily, Cuomo dropped out of the race, and this never materialized. However, McCall, his campaign staffers and his entire political infrastructure were so worn out after fighting a brutal battle against Cuomo and his self-consumed thugs that they could not muster up the energy needed to beat Pataki. Other factors played into McCall’s defeat, of course. However, I attribute some of the blame to the fragmentation of the Democratic Party.
A major cause of the antagonism within the Democratic party is fear. It’s a perfect climate for the current ruling party to prop themselves up as the defenders of American soil and American lives. The Republicans invoke fear in the American people to achieve political gain, which in turn breeds a different kind of fear in more liberal politicians. Essentially, the Democrats are scared of scared people, so they agitate each other on the issues, which only further fragments the party. Pataki had the advantage of being in office during the attacks on New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. Hence, the Democrats campaigned under the assumption that New Yorkers were scared that a Democrat couldn’t ensure security, or “take care of things” the way Pataki had. But this was all a faade. Pataki didn’t even need to run an aggressive campaign-he just sat back and watched the Democrats make his job easier by tearing each other apart. If the Democrats stopped making so many false assumptions, and just campaigned with clarity, they could pull themselves out of their ditch.
It is ironic and pathetic that Democratic campaigns get so wrapped up in kicking the crap out of each other that they lose sight of the long term objective. Thankfully, negative campaign strategies have so far been kept to a minimum in this primary cycle. All the candidates seem to be focusing on Bush’s shortcomings. If Kerry wins the primary, he can pat himself on the back for weathering the storm, but it’s the Republican typhoon that he really needs to brace himself for. As always, it comes down to the voters. The newspapers often portray Kerry’s victories over Edwards as Americans choosing “Mr. Electable” over “Mr. Likeable.” I find it somewhat reassuring that the issues are really being addressed, as there are many more salient ones to address than there were in 2000.
I do not feel comfortable with John Edwards’ position on certain key issues, such as the death penalty and gay marriage. Although I am also disappointed that both he and Kerry did at some point support Bush’s invasion of Iraq, I am aware that they cannot avoid justifying their decisions on the basis of the purported existence of weapons of mass destruction. John Kerry is the best candidate, as well as the most likely prospect for the Democratic nomination.
Even for those who don’t stand on the side of Kerry, it is important to keep perspective on where the real political battle must be fought. I’m a rather unique liberal; no Democratic candidate who fits my credo is ever going to stand a chance against Bush in the current political atmosphere. Even if America doesn’t deserve the best president, it and the world both deserve better than Bush. Therefore, I hope we do whatever it takes to win this time, even if it means making a few concessions in order to preserve some semblance of cohesion among American liberals.
Sonia Mukhi is a junior in the School of Foreign Service. She’ll be expecting your support in the upcoming election.
