In the weeks leading up to the 2004 presidential election, I signed up for both John Kerry's and George W. Bush's e-mail newsletters. Following Bush's victory, the e-mails from his camp slowly dwindled until they were completely replaced in my inbox by messages urging me to increase the size of my penis or alerting me I had won a free iPod mini.
The e-mails from John Kerry headquarters did not cease, however. In fact, their frequency actually increased post-election. Contrary to my belief that a failed candidate's campaign headquarters building is ritualistically incinerated on Nov. 3, Kerry e-mails inexplicably continued to flood my inbox.
The content of the first few messages were predictable - Kerry thanked his supporters and congratulated them on a job well done even though the Oval Office was not in his future. He finished his e-mail by promising to "hold the Bush administration accountable."
Hmm, I thought. Hold the Bush administration accountable? Since Republicans dominate the White House, the Senate, the House, governorships, state legislatures and the Supreme Court, Kerry's message seems to be incredibly important. Apart from perhaps Hillary Clinton, John Kerry is the most visible and therefore the most influential Democrat in the Senate. If anyone were to "hold the Bush administration accountable," it certainly would be Kerry.
Kerry's e-mails continued to barrage my inbox. I was looking forward to the unfolding of his grand scheme, to see how he could be a roadblock to the Bush administration and offer sensible policy alternatives in the face of a Republican-dominated legislature. Kerry's first order of business? A hokey "Fire Donald Rumsfeld Now!" chain letter delivered to my inbox, the contents of which a restill posted on his Web site, johnkerry.com.
I was horrified. Was this the best a U.S. senator could do? Rehash tired talking points and childishly call for the resignation of a political enemy? How was this holding the Bush administration accountable? It seemed that after the election, John Kerry was even more determined to embarrass himself and fellow Democrats. Kerry displayed no tact or foresight, a trend that continued to plague him in the coming weeks.
In his next e-mail, Kerry spelled out his second grand measure: smear the name Condoleezza Rice during her Senate confirmation. Kerry's cause was also adopted by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., whose public interrogation of Rice was excessive and unneeded, rehashing tired talking points as part of a partisan agenda. Don't be fooled - the debate over Rice's confirmation certainly was not some brave stand against the supposed tyranny of the Bush administration. As Sen. John McCain quipped, "I can only conclude that (the Democrats) are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness over the outcome of the election." Rice's qualifications should never have been in doubt. Democrats could use their time and energy in better ways than mindlessly voting against anything Bush.
One might argue that Democratic senators were simply doing their job by debating the Rice confirmation in such a manner. However, what do Democrats really gain by such unnecessary, harsh debate? Nothing, except they turn themselves into members of the "anti-Bush party," a weak shadow of true Democratic identity. Perhaps Democrats should take their cues from Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, whose ability to reach across the aisle while still supporting the Democratic platform won over voters and politicians alike.
What John Kerry and Democrats need to realize is that the only way they can hold the Bush administration accountable is by re-articulating the values that define the core of the Democratic Party: social welfare, multilateralism, civil rights, progressive taxation, reproductive rights and environmentalism. The last time I checked, the Democrats are not supposed to be a tinfoil opposition party. They belong to a political party with a successful and important heritage whose vital message has been eroded by simpleminded partisanship.
Kerry began to understand this in his most recent series of e-mails, in which he coined his most recent measure, "Give Voice To Our Values." He asked families in the United States to call a toll-free number and tell their story in order to explain how universal health care would benefit them. Kerry promised to play some messages aloud when the Senate convened. An excellent way to articulate Democratic ideals, but just imagine all the prank calls they must have received: "Is there a Senator Seymour Butts on the Senate floor?"
Holding the Bush administration accountable is not about partisanship. It is about presenting a viable, attractive alternative to Republican short-sightedness. Ultimately, by refusing to step out of the spotlight and continuing to pigeonhole Democrats as the 'Bush Opposition Party,' John Kerry is damaging his party's chances in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Think Kerry was wishy-washy and lacked a message during his campaign? Just wait until that image gets projected upon all Democrats in the coming months - which is what will happen unless John Kerry and the Democrats change their tactics.
Why should any voter believe in John Kerry, or any Democrat for that matter, if their deepest conviction seemingly is to simply disagree with the president? Until you answer that, John Kerry, stop e-mailing me.
Nicholas Swisher '08 wishes spam-digest@brown.edu would catch Kerry's e-mails, too.
