Kerry raps Bush but election race is not black and white

RAPPER P Diddy is trying to drum up support for John Kerry with a “Vote or Die” clothing line.

Last week Dick Cheney came up with something similar, basically telling his audience to “Vote Bush or Die”. For all their differences P Diddy and Cheney are merely echoing a truth that is held to be universal, namely that this election is one of the most important in American history.

Not since 1960, when John F Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon, or 1912, when Woodrow Wilson beat Theodore Roosevelt, has the choice been so stark, or so they say.

Yet, in terms of declared policies the similarities between George W Bush and Kerry are more noticeable than the differences.

While Bush and Kerry disagree over the conduct of the Iraq War, Kerry has gone so far as to say that knowing what he knows now he still would have voted to give the president the authority to use force against Saddam Hussein.

Both Bush and Kerry favour staying the course in Iraq until it can stand on its own two feet.

Both believe that the US is at war and are committed to fully fighting terrorism. In fact, each accuses the other of not being tough enough on al-Qaida.

While he criticises Bush’s unilateralism, Kerry is opposed to the Kyoto Protocol and unlikely to sign up to the International Criminal Court.

Economically, both candidates claim to be able to cut the budget deficit although neither is completely clear about how they will do so.

Even on the divisive issues of taxation, Kerry is only promising to roll back the cuts for those on incomes of $200,000 or more.

Of course there are differences between Republicans and Democrats on social policy and judicial appointments but it has always been thus. In fact, many of these policy differences were more pronounced in the 2000 election than they are now.

True, the base of each party may be poles apart. After all, many Democrats opposed the Iraq War even if Kerry and John Edwards supported it. Yet, Americans are electing a president, not party activists.

So what then is the difference? What makes this election one of the most important in American history?

It is a difference that many people intuitively feel but few actually articulate. It lies at the heart of America’s role in the world. It is a difference between conservative and liberal visions but it comes with a twist: in this case it is Bush who is the liberal and Kerry the conservative.

Liberals, in the tradition of former President Woodrow Wilson, believe that they can remake the world for the better and that the causes of terrorism and conflict will recede if enlightened democratic regimes take hold throughout the Middle East. Bush liberals believe that the United States must use its unprecedented power to transform a troubled world, even if that means forcibly imposing democracy where none previously existed. A recent convert to liberalism, Bush sees the spread of liberty as his mission and has abandoned a previous aversion to nation building in favour of one of the most radical projects in American history.

Conservatives, often called foreign policy realists, balk at such talk.

They reject the idea that governments can radically remake their own countries, let alone foreign lands. They place a premium on stability and alliances, rejecting forcible democratisation as a dangerous experiment destined to end in tears.

Kerry’s foreign policy team is packed with realists, some of whom have left the current Bush administration out of disgust with its liberal leanings. These figures include Rand Beers, who resigned as head of counter-terrorism in the current Bush administration in order to become Kerry’s chief foreign policy adviser. An abundance of former generals and diplomats who usually back Republicans are lining up behind Kerry this time round.

Conservative realism is not a sentiment confined to the advisers. In a very revealing interview with the Washington Post several months ago Kerry said that America had more important national interests in China, Russia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia than the promotion of democracy. For Kerry the management of great power relations, and co-operation in non-proliferation and counter terrorism efforts trump liberalising the regimes of other states.

While Bush peppered his speeches on the campaign trail with references to his commitment to a democratic Afghanistan and Iraq, Kerry made no such remarks during his convention speech. It is a reasonably safe bet that a Kerry administration may settle for a moderate but still authoritarian government in Iraq rather than chase a democratic mirage.

The two visions also collide over the importance they ascribe to America’s traditional Western allies such as France and Germany. Bush is willing to countenance continued estrangement from old friends in order to further his agenda of remaking the world. Kerry is not. In short, Kerry conservatives want to strengthen “the West” and work with the rest while Bush liberals want to forget “the West” and change the rest.

Bush liberals fear that a Kerry administration will coddle dictatorships that allow terrorism to fester and threaten. Kerry conservatives worry that a Bush administration will diminish America’s global influence and spend its resources in pursuit of a utopian pipedream.

The alternative that Kerry offers, as several of his senior advisers readily admit, is more akin to the conservative realist policy of Bush senior’s 1988-92 administration than it is to the Clinton presidency.

Not since 1947, when the strategy for containing the Soviet Union was designed, have matters so fundamental to American grand strategy been up for grabs. That is what makes this election cycle one for the history books.

Tom Wright is Research Fellow at John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge.