Skip to main content

With the country in such dire straits, we very well may have arrived at a once-in-a-generation moment for making big, bold moves that pivot the country in a new, progressive direction. If successful, the blueish shift we've witnessed in 2006 and 2008 could solidify into a long-term realignment of the electorate. As Barack likes to say, this is our moment. This is our time.

We all can recite the litany of events from the last eight years which brought us to this point. But what if a single, key event had changed? Would the dawn of a new, progressive era in the country's politics still seem as likely? Would a political realignment be in the works? Consider this: what if John F. Kerry had defeated George W. Bush in 2004?

Given that Bush was reelected, it's clear that as of November 2, 2004 the country as a whole did not yet view his tenure poorly, much less as a disaster. Remarkable though it may seem in hindsight, his approval/disapproval rating at the time hovered in the +0 to +5 range. Of course, many disasters had yet to occur, or past ones to be revealed, which ultimately would upend this perception. But not only would these events significantly alter public perception of Bush himself, they would also tarnished the Republican party as a whole.

How many of these events would have occurred with Kerry in the White House? How would Kerry have reacted? How would today's public perception of the two parties been affected if Kerry had been president the last four years?

Let's speculate. Below is a thought experiment that follows one potential alternate path from 2004 to today. The focus is on the public's perception of the two major political parties as events unfold.  

Foreign Policy
Iraq: The day after John Kerry's victory, the country is split on the Iraq war. Despite the ongoing death toll and revelations of torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, at least half the country subscribes to Colin Powell's "you break it, you bought it" theory. They believe we must stay until the country stabilizes. Polls just prior to the election showed a majority viewed Republicans as better able to handle the situation, so Kerry's victory is not viewed as a mandate for a major shift in direction. Staying in line with what he had alluded to during the campaign, Kerry institutes a temporary troop "surge." He also directs the army to accelerate delivery of better armored Humvees to the troops. In addition he reengages with allies, offering greater participation in reconstruction contracts. He is able to garner additional financial aid, but no one wants to send more of their troops into the Iraq meat grinder.

Just one year later, violence has worsened. An ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 64% of the country does not approve of the way President Kerry is handling the war, and Republicans are trusted over Democrats to handle the war by 48% to 37%. After all, things seemed "winnable" when a Republican was in charge. Conservatives pound on the "Democrats are weak on national defense" and "it's all Kerry's fault" memes, which are looped endlessly by corporate media and solidify into conventional wisdom. By 2006, conditions on the ground in Iraq have deteriorated further. Kerry declares that the U.S. should not continue to mediate what has devolved into a civil war, and announces plans for troop withdrawls. Those on the right howl that that Democratic incompetence have led to a surrender to terrorists. When the troop withdrawls begin, violence spikes. Kerry argues that the rise is expected but temporary. He "pauses" further withdrawls, but violence worsens further. Troop levels are temporarily increased to quell the violence. All along the way, right wing radio eviscerates him, and its following grows. Late night comedians mock Kerry's indecisiveness. The public decides he's botched the whole thing. In the midterm elections, Republicans pick up seven seats in the House and two in the Senate.

Afghanistan: Neglect of the war in Afghanistan, and its implications for a resurgent Taliban, are not a significant topic during the 2004 election and so have not yet entered the general public consciousness. Some of the troops withdrawn from Iraq are redeployed to Afghanistan. But the pace is too slow and the Taliban too elusive. By 2007, outbreaks of violence in Afgahnistan begin getting coverage on cable news. Congressional Republicans hold hearings to get to the bottom of how the Kerry administration has undermined Bush's "victory" against the Taliban.

North Korea: While the Bush administration had already walked away from its commitments under the U.S.-DPRK Agreed Framework of October 1994, the implications of that move were not visible to anyone but policy wonks in 2004. Upon entering office the Kerry administration quickly reverses course and renews talks. Conservatives mock what they view as a hopelessly naive policy of engagement with a rogue state. On October 9, 2006, North Korea does NOT detonate a nulcear device. No one notices. The failure of Bush's policy is not brought to light.

Rule of Law: Upon entering office, John Kerry and his Attorney General discover that the Bush administration has secretly engaged for years in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. Kerry quietly issues a new executive order rescinding this aspect of the Bush terrorist surveillance program. It is never exposed to the public. There is never a public debate over updating FISA and providing retroactive immunity to telcos. These secrets are swept under the rug and never taint the GOP.

The Kerry administration never proposes a Military Commissions Act. The specter of denying habeaus corpus to "unlawful enemy combatants," or anyone else for that matter, is never raised, and so never becomes associated with Republicans.

Domestic Policy
Hurricane Katrina strikes in August 2005, early in Kerry's term. The federal response is swift, and Kerry is personally involved even before the hurricane makes landfall. But while his head of FEMA is highly qualified and competent, he has been struggling to reinvigorate an agency that quietly atrophied under Bush, and that process is only seven months old.

Handoffs are missed in coordinating the response from federal, state, and local teams that lead to delays during initial rescue efforts. Aid is quick to arrive at some locales, but inexplicably misses others. Looting erupts in New Orleans. Mayor Ray Nagin complains in a press conference that he isn't getting all the support he needs. In the aftermath, Republicans in Congress gravely shake their heads and hold hearings to assess why Kerry's Department of Homeland Security failed to respond adequately to one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history.

U.S. Attorneys: At the beginning of Kerry's term, all 93 U.S. Attorneys appointed by President Bush follow the tradition of submitting letters of resignation. Kerry eventually accepts the vast majority of these resignations, and appoints Democrats in their place. There are no mid-term firings of U.S. Attorneys for political purposes. No hearings are held on the matter, so Monica Goodling never testifies that she "crossed the line" in taking political views into account when making hiring decisions. Accusations and subpoenas are never issued. No one is forced to resign over the matter. Republican politicization of the Department of Justice under Bush never sees the harsh light of day.

Alberto Gonzalez is never appointed as Attorney General of the United States of America. Consequently, he is never forced to resign in disgrace.

Supreme Court: Sandra Day O'Connor resigns from the U.S. Supreme Court on July 1, 2005. Kerry, faced with a Republican-controlled Senate, nominates a centrist federal Appeals Court judge to succeed her. On September 3, 2005, William Rehnquist passes away. Kerry names another centrist to succeed Rehnquist as Chief Justice. Both appointments generate a great deal of squawking from the right, but ultimately are confirmed by the Senate. John Roberts and Samuel Alito are never appointed to the Court.

Economy: In the Fall of 2005, the once booming housing market screeches to an abrubt halt, as median prices nationwide tumble 3.3 percent. The slowdown continues through 2006, and accelerates further heading into 2007. In February 2007, the subprime mortgage industry collapses, and foreclosures double over what was seen in 2006. On April 2 the country's largest subprime lender, New Century Financial, declars bankruptcy. Others gradually follow suit, and by August the country's largest overall mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial, must accept an emergency loan from a group of banks to keep it afloat. President Kerry proposes a one billion dollar bailout fund for homeowners at risk of losing their homes. Congress balks at the price tag. A more limited bailout passes, but is like a bandaide on a severed limb. By September, housing prices have declined for nine straight months. The Federal Reserve gradually cuts interest rates, and injects $40 billion into the money supply for banks to borrow at a low rate.

U.S. economic malaise worsens in 2008, and the price of gasoline hits $4 per gallon. Finally, Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt in September 2008, triggering a panic that leads to a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. Republicans never seem to get tired of uttering the phrases "tax and spend" and  "worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." John Kerry gives a televised address to discuss the crisis with an anxious nation. He tries to explain what a credit default swap is, but his delivery is stilted and his words don't resonate with the public. Democrats blanket the talk shows trying to describe how the mess could be traced to an obscure but lengthy (262 page) amendment added to a commodities bill by Phil Grahm in 2000, but all that low-information voters seem able to grasp is that everything seemed fine until Kerry took over.

In his bid for reelection, Kerry is defeated in a landslide. Republicans pick up eight seats in the House and 1 more in the Senate.

Postscript: This is just one alternate path that history could have taken had Kerry been elected; obviously, many others are possible. Undoubtedly, he would also have accomplished some good things which are not forseen here. But what's intriguing is that that Bush and his cohorts in Congress had poisoned the well of governance during his first term, but in many cases that poison did not penetrate public awareness until his second term -- and blame would quite possibly have been assigned to whoever was in charge at the time. Also, without his reelection, unpopular actions from Bush's second term would never had occurred, so would never have tarnished the GOP brand.

Of course, Republicans in Congress did pretty good job of tarnishing themselves with scandals before the 2006 elections, and Bush's first-term misqueues would not have been totally ignored by the voters. But still, it's evident that Bush's second term more directly harmed the GOP than did the first on its own. And without that added harm (with the GOP having no one to blame but themselves), it seems likely we wouldn't be facing the prospect of a long-term progressive realignment so soon.

Am I glad Bush won reelection? Hell no. The bouillabaise of relief, joy, and hope I enjoyed on this year's election night stood in stark contrast to the thin gruel of disbelief, depression, and disgust I endured four years ago. Afterward I was despondant for weeks -- though to be truthful, my vote was cast more against Bush than for Kerry. But it's nice to take solice in the idea that Bush's disasterous relection at least laid the groundwork to accelerate a new progressive world order.

Originally posted to outside on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:39 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I've been thinking about this too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betterdonkeys

    And I'm with you -- certainly can't say I'm glad W won in 2004 ... but, then again, I'm definitely glad we had the candidate and campaign we had in 2008 rather than what it would have been like had Kerry been running for a second term.

    I guess the perspective always depend on the point in time.

    While we breathe, we hope -- President Elect Barack Obama, 11/04/08

    by kainah on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:02:06 PM PST

    •  I've had the same thoughts -- back to Gore (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kainah, betterdonkeys

      I'm not saying that Bush's victory is the best thing that ever happened, but there has been a far greater realignment that would have occurred otherwise. If Kerry had won, he would have struggled mightily, and he might have lost to McCain. If you go back further, and suppose Gore had won -- what would he have been able to achieve with a GOP-led House? Would voters have turned on a do-nothing GOP? Or, would they have rejected Gore in 2004, as ineffectual?

      Maybe, history played out the way it has, for a reason..

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

      by FischFry on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:16:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a really interesting diary... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and you should post a tip jar.

      I have been thinking about the exact same question, of what would have happened if Kerry had won. I am a little more optimistic that things would have gone a little better, especially with regards to Hurricane Katrina - while this situation would still have been difficult and I do not pretend that things would have been peachy-keen, I do believe that we would have had a palpably more competent response, the loss of life would have been much lower, etc. Of course, I do agree with you that the VRWC would have been out in force, ripping him to shreds for the problems that did occur.

      The other factor to consider is the impact of John McCain. It is not entirely clear that he would have run; he may have deferred to Kerry, his friend from the Senate. I doubt this, however; I believe that McCain would have run and would have been the nominee. And if so, he certainly would have flaunted the "Kerry-wanted-me-to-be-his-VP" meme, likely to Kerry's detriment. And it's likely that McCain would have chosen less of a reach as his VP candidate - Crist or Pawlenty, maybe even Giuliani, if they were pushing the "tough on defense" theme. That said, some of the same factors of 2008 would have been in play - demographics would still have broken our way, and most importantly, we still would have been running against the incompetent campaign of John McCain.

      It is on that last point that I think that Kerry actually would have won re-election, narrowly - though it would have been an uninspired campaign, McCain's incompetence would have lost the election (moreso than Kerry winning it).

      This is an instructive exercise, though, because it's worth thinking about how circumstantial politics can be. It really did take a fairly unique confluence of events to produce the stellar candidate in 2008 that was Barack Obama.

  •  extremely entertaining. (0+ / 0-)

    and plausible enough to read. I don't think Kerry would have fucked up the economy as badly - but he was clearly unequipped to fight the hate machine on domestic issues.

    although, just as alt-Kerry swept some potential Bush fuck-ups under the rugs, he probably would have done some awesome stuff we couldn't imagine.

    (-4.73,-5.05) Crush Chambliss! WE ARE ALL GEORGIANS NOW!

    by amnesiaproletariat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:11:47 PM PST

  •  I like this analysis (0+ / 0-)

    I still think the costs and hardships with the Repugs losing all that political capital is something we haven't even uncovered yet.

    Right now we just won the auction for a foreclosed America... now we get to see what damage has been done when we get the keys on Jan 20th.

    Imagine the proverbial house had been turned into a grow-farm or meth-lab... lots of cleaning to be done. Will it have been worth to break the back of the conservative movement?

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

    by sacrelicious on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:22:55 PM PST

  •  There's no way it was worth it (0+ / 0-)

    The Democratic Congress is a total joke, and we will be paying for the current economic crisis for decades. Kerry should have won, fuck those 62 million idiots.

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 05:45:43 PM PST

  •  no, it wasn't worth it (0+ / 0-)

    Bush had four more years to fuck everything up beyond repair.

    People think they grasp the magnitude of what Bush did to this country. But they still don't have the slightest clue.

    When the car companies fail utterly, and unemployment hits 30%, and Obama opens up the Treasury only to find that Paulson has looted everything that hasn't been nailed down, and the food and water shortages begin, and all our infrastructure breaks down, and we start having terrorist attacks by crazed right-wingnuts angry at having a black man in the White House, and we're still pouring hundreds of billions into never-ending wars in the Middle East--only then will we be in a position to fully appreciate just how thoroughly Bush has fucked us.

    There won't be a real progressive realignment until we hit bottom. Until then, we'll be in a chaotic, confused period where we're hit with one disaster after another and everyone's just trying to keep their heads above water and make sense of it all.

    Conservatives will desperately try to cling to the status quo, liberals will be divided as to the best course of action, and everyone else will just be desperately trying to survive. No one will have the political will for much of anything in the way of reform.

    Whether Obama will be able to make a dent in all this mess to the extent that he'll be able to win a second term is a totally open question. Maybe he can, maybe he can't. But I am not looking forward to the next four years.

  •  Very interesting analysis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betterdonkeys

    I'm a diehard Kerrycrat, but I agree with the general thesis that he would've had a hard time getting much accomplished, given the circumstances in 2004. I think President Obama will be in a much better position, and I also think Senator Kerry is going to accomplish a great deal over the next few years.

    Please visit: http://www.jkmediasource.org

    by Noisy Democrat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:42:40 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site