What's up with John Kerry this week? A classic, old-school Northeastern Democrat makes it a point to say he believes life "begins at conception?" He supports Ariel Sharon "100%" and "will not negotiate with Yasser Arafat?" Is this the man that The Nation named the most liberal U.S. Senator?
Oh, yes, indeed ...
Bill Clinton had a single "Sister Souljah" moment in his campaign, but the John Kerry camp seems to have any number of similar vignettes ready to pull out now or at any other time.
I did not realize how effective this type of psy-ops technique was until I saw a Fox News anchorwoman nearly in tears as she attempted to make sense of a candidate from "The Abortion Party" saying that he believed life started at conception.
But beyond just campaign tactics, I think that John Kerry is sending the country an important signal and I think we'd be remiss to misunderstand it. What he is saying to the country by staking out these positions is, "Yes, I know that I am the most liberal Senator of the most liberal state in the country. But the President must be the President of all Americans, liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican. I was a liberal Senator, but I will be a moderate President."
Now, this is very important. As much as I would like a President who is going to enact policy along the lines of my exact views, I understand that our country is deeply divided along ideological lines. A partisan President will not be an effective one, or -- I would say -- an elected one.
As such, John Kerry is going to disappoint me and us occasionally on the stump. I have previously registered my discomfort with Ariel Sharon's policies on the settlements and on the wall. I do support Israel, but it pains me to see Mr. Kerry so fully endorse a stance that I believe to be detrimental both to Israelis and Palestinians, as well as to our own security.
Still, I understand that John Kerry's position is closer to the position of most Americans than my own. If we want to win this election, our candidate's positions must look like those of Americans.
Hypocrisy? Sure, if you have to call it that. But I prefer to think of it as striking a balance between 1) carrying out the national will -- this is, after all, the democratic principle -- and 2) providing visionary leadership that comes from one's own ethos and experiences.
It is a difficult compromise, but a compromise it is. As in all compromises, you get some and you give some. Do I trust John Kerry to separate out what to give and what to get? I do.