Senator John Kerry has enjoyed more party unity than any Democratic challenger in memory. Democrats are so eager to oust George Bush that the normally fractious party of the people is willing to cut Kerry immense amounts of slack. On the whole, that shift reflects overdue maturity.
However, Kerry's honeymoon could founder on three key questions -- his budget strategy, Iraq, and his choice of running mate.
Kerry-nomics. The Kerry camp, to the consternation of liberals, has now embraced deficit reduction as its economic centerpiece. The policy is sensible as far as it goes. But will it go too far and moot social investment?
As economics, the premise is that a repeat of Clinton's performance in reducing the deficits accumulated by Reagan and Bush I will reassure money markets and restore high growth. As politics, the idea is: First, keep it simple. The Clinton era is associated with prosperity. Clinton turned deficits to surpluses. Ergo, Kerry should do likewise.
Second, Kerry is being blasted as a big spending Massachusetts liberal. Therefore, bend over backwards to demonstrate that Kerry is more fiscally responsible than Bush.
But both premises can go too far. Economically, the deficit indeed should be reduced, but not at the cost of social investment. To increase the supply of good jobs, public investments in energy independence and in the public services that Bush has slashed will be more effective than reducing the deficit to zero. Better to run moderate deficits, and use public outlay to increase the rate of economic growth and job creation.
Politically, Kerry will be tagged by the right as a big spender no matter what he does. It's hard to reclaim the case for social investment later if you disdain it now. Rather than trimming, Kerry should be leading, and educating the public on why social outlay is sound economics. Plus, as Walter Mondale painfully learned in 1984, you don't defeat Republicans by being a better deficit-hawk.
Clinton governed by cutting deficits, but won election by "putting people first." Kerry needs to run the way Clinton ran, not the way Clinton governed. Few ordinary voters care about deficits, and the message they hear is: "He'll raise your taxes."
Iraq. Thus far, Kerry's position has been smart and sensible: Extricate the U.S. from Bush's colossal mess by shifting responsibility for Iraq's reconstruction to a U.N. high commissioner and a truly multinational peacekeeping force. Currently, the U.S. occupation is a lightening rod. Iraq may never be a viable democracy, but it stands a better change of becoming tolerably stable if the U.N. rather than the increasingly hated American occupation takes charge.
However, things may well fall apart on the ground so fast that pressure will mount for additional U.S. troop commitments. The Bush people are demanding that Kerry say exactly what he would do in present circumstances. Though there will be temptation for Kerry to demonstrate that he is at least as "tough" as Bush, getting entangled in the tactical specifics of the present mess -- Bush's mess -- would be a huge mistake for Kerry.
Also, mass opinion is rapidly diverging from elite opinion on Iraq. Many in the foreign policy elite believe that, however unwise the invasion in the first place, we owe it to the Iraqi people to "stay the course." But ordinary voters, increasingly, want to cut our losses. Kerry should listen to them.
The Veep-stakes. Several names have been mentioned, among them Republican Senator John McCain. According to well placed sources, the person in the Kerry camp most enamored of McCain is Senator Kerry himself.
Presumably, McCain would attract political independents and signal a broad, bipartisan campaign. But think again.
McCain, in nearly all respects, is a conservative Republican. He's against most regulation, against reproductive rights, anti-union, and mediocre at best on the environment. Except for an independent streak on foreign policy and campaign finance reform, he's one of the more conservative members of the Senate.
Bush and McCain may share a mutual loathing, but that's not enough. If McCain really prefers Kerry, he can campaign for Kerry without becoming his running mate.
Supporters of a Kerry-McCain ticket argue that the important thing is to get Kerry elected. McCain's views would have little influence. But one American president in seven has died in office. And McCain could dampen the enthusiasm of the Democratic faithful far more than he attracted independents.
The party unity that Kerry is enjoying is a priceless asset. He needs to keep the honeymoon going, at least until November.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. This column originally appeared in the Boston Globe.
