Flipping through various talking heads shows it seemed that the consensus for why Kerry was considered the winner was because of Bush's behavior on the split screen. In essence, they argued his ideas were fine, but that he basically did himself in. There is another reason, however, that the punditocracy has all but ignored. The reason John Kerry won the debate is that on foreign policy issues most Americans agree with John Kerry's perspective and not with George Bush. Steven Kull at the Program in International Policy Attitudes has been extensively polling American on foreign policy issues for years. He has put together a hypothetical dialogue at:
http://www.pipa.org/articles/RBF_all.htm
in which John or Jane Q. Public is answering questions about various global issues. I have transcribed some of this interview below the fold to show why it is that Americans are naturally attracted to Kerry's vision of America's role in the world.
Q: Rumor has it that in the `90s with the end of the Cold War, you were in the mood to withdraw from the world, but all that changed with September 11 and now you are much more ready for the US to use its military power. Are these rumors true?
A: Hmm. Not really. After the Cold War I did not think it was an option for the US to withdraw from the world. We're so interconnected with the world now it's not really an option. September 11 did drive that home, though, so whatever lingering ideas I had about whether we could just turn our backs on the world--those pretty much got wiped out.
Q: So you like the way the US is involved in the world?
A: Well, I didn't say that. Before September 11 I felt that the US played the dominant role--like being the world policeman--more than it should. And I still feel that way now. It seems like we always feel that we have to be out front as the big world leader. I'd like to see that ramped down some.
Q: So it does sound like you want to disengage from the world somewhat.
A: No. I just want to see the US work together with other countries more--have the US do its share in solving problems together with other countries. I don't like being the Lone Ranger so much. We should work through the UN more.
Q: But since the UN Security Council refused to back the war against Iraq, haven't you soured on the UN?
A: Well, I was disappointed that the UN failed to come to an agreement on Iraq. But that does not mean I don't want to keep trying to work through the UN. I do. In fact, I would like to see the UN play an even bigger role in the world than it does now.
Q: Why is it so important to work in these multilateral ways?
A: Well, first of all, I don't like us having to do the job all by ourselves. I'd rather share the burden. But it's also that the UN just has the right to do things the US does not necessarily have the right to do. So it's probably going to work better, because it's not just the US throwing its weight around.
Q: But didn't you support the US going to war with Iraq even though it did not have UN approval?
A: Well, before the war I thought we should take time to build support at the United Nations. Once the UN inspectors were in Iraq, it seemed like we should give them a chance. I feel that we were too quick to use military force. But I also felt then and still feel now that if the President decides to use military force, it is important to stand behind him.
Q: Why was it so important to get UN support?
A: I'm not sure we have the right to march in and overthrow a government, even if it is trying to build nuclear weapons.
Q: Does the United Nations have the right to intervene like that?
A: Yeah. Definitely.
Q: What if a country poses an imminent threat to the United States? Is unilateral action justified then?
A: Well yeah, I mean if it's in self-defense and they are about to attack. But it should be pretty clear cut.
Q: Did you think that Iraq posed such an imminent threat?
A: Probably not.
Q: What do you think about the argument that that the war was justified because Saddam was a dictator violating the rights of its people?
A: I don't really think the United States has the right to do that kind of thing. You still need U.N. approval, unless it is something really large-scale and extreme--like genocide.
Q: Do you think what Saddam was doing reached that level?
A: Well it was pretty bad, but, no, not like genocide. There are probably other governments in the world right now that are as bad as Saddam's.
The interview continues on issues such as weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, North Korea, globalization, and global warming. On each of these issues the American public is more in agreement with John Kerry than with George Bush. It is no wonder that in another recent PIPA poll they found that Kerry supporters knew more where their candidate stood on global issues than Bush supporters. If Bush supporters really knew their candidate's positions they would likely be Kerry supporters.