get donkey!

Criticizing criticism

The Washington Post reports that Democrats have begun to criticize President Bush’s foreign policy.

John Kerry (I know, I know. I am starting to annoy myself with all the Kerry stuff) has come out with the most vocal policy critiques. Here’s a bit of what he has to say:

Kerry said he continues to have deep reservations about the war on terrorism but remains reluctant to outline his views in detail.
“If I really lay it out there, it’s going to be a major criticism because I really differ with the way they began the war,” he said. “I think it was not effectively targeted with respect to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden from almost Day One. I’m not going to go into now what I would have done differently but … it begins at the beginning. Strategic and covert activities could have been far more effective.”

That’s pretty bold stuff, but Kerry is decidedly running for President, so I expect stronger criticism from him. Most of the other democrats (with the exception of Al Gore, who I don’t include here because he does not currently hold office) have been less vocal and less harsh in their criticism. What’s more, based on what is mentioned in this article, there is no unified message coming from the Democratic camp. If the Democrats plan on making foreign policy criticism a mid-term campaign issue, not having a focused message could be problematic.

For better or for worse, the President retains strong public support for most of his foreign policy. In fact, most would argue that foreign policy is the foundation (and perhaps the extent) of his popularity. The strength of that support, reflected in poll numbers, undoubtedly makes going after Bush on the foreign policy front tantalizing to Democrats. After all, if they could crack the foundation, it would be easier to bring the whole house down.

Without a unified message, however, I feel that attacking Bush on the foreign policy front will be, at best, ineffective, and at worst, a political mistake. Criticizing the way things were or were not done is only half the task. If you can’t produce a better approach –in this case, one that will put a dent in some huge poll numbers–, you are left with empty rhetoric. I am not sure the Democrats have that approach. At this point, anyway they are not articulating any clear alternative. Case in point–while Kerry’s criticism is bold, it still resides in the realm of rhetoric due to his unwillingness to be specific about what he would have done differently.

I still feel Democrats are on more solid political footing on domestic issues. and, therefore I still argue that those issues should be the focus for the 2002 campaign. I am not saying the Democrats should be uncritical of the President on foreign policy, but if they expect that criticism to be an effective political tool, they would be wise to come up with a unified message.

UPDATE: I’m starting to soften a bit on this one. See comments…

July 15th, 2002 Posted by Rob | Politics | 3 comments