News at Home

Why the Bush/Kerry Debate Should Quiet America-Bashers

by Gil Troy

Mr. Troy’s latest book, MORNING IN AMERICA: HOW RONALD REAGAN INVENTED THE 1980S, will be published early next year by Princeton University Press. He is Professor of History at McGill University and a member of HNN's advisory board.

It is easy to mock the American presidential campaign. It is easy to snicker about the candidates squabbling about the wrong war – Vietnam, which ended decades ago – while ignoring the more relevant conflict of today – Iraq. It is easy to caricature the two candidates, with Senator John Kerry’s poofy hairdo and monumentally long chin that only a cartoonist could love, with President George W. Bush’s beady-eyes, and thin-lipped schoolboy grin. It is easy to dismiss the debates the two candidates finally agreed to, as carefully scripted, artificially choreographed, joint appearances, all living up to the cliché of “sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The first presidential debate, however, should have silenced the naysayers and sobered the critics. Predicting history is a tricky business but it is hard to believe that the debate will be remembered as one of those signature clashes peppering the last few decades of American political history. There was no defining gaffe as in 1976 when Gerald Ford prematurely and rhetorically liberated Eastern Europe; there was no winning line as in 1980 when Ronald Reagan shrugged off Jimmy Carter’s criticisms by saying: “There you go again.” Inevitably, after the debate, Democrats waxed eloquent about Kerry’s eloquence; Republicans consistently emphasized the president’s consistency.

Nevertheless, what was extraordinary about the debate was its sheer ordinariness – in the American context. In a world of dictatorships and terrorists, in a world where too many countries choose their leaders through one-party rule or by resorting to bloodshed, how marvelous it was to watch two tough opponents clash verbally. Moreover, while each jabbed repeatedly at the other, each resisted the temptation to plunge into the gutter – as so many of their supporters have chosen to do this campaigning season. Each made respectful and gracious comments about the other’s character; each dodged a question inviting some mudslinging: when the moderator Jim Lehrer asked President Bush to speculate whether a Kerry victory might invite another 9/11, Bush chose to predict his own re-election victory, rendering the question moot; when Lehrer invited discussion of “underlying character issues,” Bush saluted Kerry’s “service” to the nation, and Kerry said “I'm not going to talk about a difference of character. I don't think that's my job or my business.”

Of course, the gentlemanly tone was tactically shrewd; Americans respond to political mudslinging while nevertheless demanding that their politicians act like statesmen. Of course, each campaign has unleashed stinging attacks on the other, and no one is naïve enough to believe Republicans’ claims distancing themselves from the Swift Boat Veterans’ ads that question Kerry’s Vietnam heroics or Democrats’ claims distancing themselves from the accusations about Bush’s National Guard service. And it has been disillusioning to hear the selective indignation, how many Republicans rationalize the Swift Boat ads but condemn Farenheit 9/11, while Democrats often lionize Michael Moore but denounce the Swift Boat Veterans.

That is why this debate was so healing, so reassuring. When America-bashing has become one of the world’s most popular sports, it is important to see what makes America work. When Bushophobia has overrun much of Europe and Canada, it is illuminating to see the many principles which unite Senator Kerry and President Bush – including zero-tolerance for terror at home and abroad, in Beslan, Jerusalem, Washington or New York. When ideologues find all kinds of ways to rationalize terrorism and suicide bombings but excoriate free countries that mobilize to eradicate terror, it is instructive to remember the ennobling aspects of the political process. When pessimists doubt the resilience of democracy during these trying times, it is inspiring to see a peaceful, respectful conversation conducted with tens of millions of people, who are empowered to vote.

In our headline-driven era, we tend to focus on the moments when sparks fly, when people fail, when blood flows. Every now and then, we need to focus on the poetry of the everyday and of Election Day, on the freedoms and privileges we in North America take for granted – and should defend ardently, passionately, as both President Bush and Senator Kerry vowed to do.

This article was first published by La Presse and is reprinted with permission of the author.