Ready for action

In accepting the presidential nomination, Democrat John Kerry offers Bush-lite, writes Conor O'Clery , North America Editor

In accepting the presidential nomination, Democrat John Kerry offers Bush-lite, writes Conor O'Clery, North America Editor

There is a scene in Oliver Stone's 1989 film Born on the Fourth of July in which wheelchair-bound Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic, played by Tom Cruise, forces his way into the 1972 Republican convention on Miami Beach and hoists a sign for the TV cameras that reads "Stop the bombing". These are changed times. At this week's Democratic National Convention in Boston, many of the angry Vietnam vets of those days were already inside. On Thursday night, the most famous anti-war veteran, John Kerry - who, in April 1971, wearing green fatigues, dramatically challenged senators with the question "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" - took the podium to accept the nomination as Democratic presidential candidate for 2004. Right up there on the stage, in his wheelchair, introducing him, was the most famous crippled veteran on today's political circuit, former Georgia senator Max Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam.

But here's a funny thing. The US is at war again, in Iraq. More than 900 US troops have been killed in the war, and more than 5,000 wounded, and every day the veteran hospitals are taking in more maimed soldiers. But the protesters against this unpopular war, in which 130,000 American troops are engaged without an end in sight, were on the outside again in Boston, caged in behind wire fencing. And whereas in 1972 Nixon offered a plan to get out of Vietnam that helped get him re-elected, the rhetoric from the Democratic platform this week did not offer an exit strategy.

What John Kerry offered in his acceptance speech on Thursday night was to keep the nation safe and strong, but to handle America's military role in a better way. Kerry voted for the war and has spoken of keeping troops in Iraq for several years. He knows that in post-9/11 America, most voters worry about security.

READ MORE

It wasn't so 30 years ago. Withdrawing from Vietnam was a national humiliation, but not nation-threatening. In the minds of most Americans, leaving Iraq to its fate, to evolve perhaps into an anarchical terrorist nation, would increase the danger to the US of a new terrorist attack.

That is the conundrum facing the former anti-war protester. He could only go so far in capitalising on overwhelming Democratic discontent over the war. He did not outline a clear alternative, but a different way of doing things. He offered himself as Bush-lite. His main initiative was to restore the alliances that served America well for 50 years.

"I KNOW WHAT we have to do in Iraq," he told the convention. "We need a president who has the ability to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home." He would not get into wars of choice, only wars of necessity. "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as a president," he said. "Let there be no mistake. I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response." And, in a line straight from the Bush textbook, he said: "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."

He used the word "strength" 17 times, emphasising that "in these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong." He did not explain his vote to invade Iraq, but made oblique criticisms of how Bush is conducting the war. On his first day in office, he said, he would send a message to every soldier: "You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace." He would dispense with the simplicities and deceptions of the Bush years. "Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so," he said. "Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn't make it so. And proclaiming 'mission accomplished' certainly doesn't make it so."

Other top foreign policy figures speaking at the convention also promised that John Kerry would regain the respect in the world that Bush squandered, and restore alliances to reduce the American burden.

Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, told delegates: "When John Kerry is president, American allies will have no excuse to remain on the sidelines" in the "death struggle" with radical fundamentalists, though he did not explore the possibility that they may have reasons to remain on the sidelines, or to acknowledge that Bush has already gone down this road in recent weeks with NATO and the UN.

Madeleine Albright, tipped as a future Secretary of State in a Kerry administration, took a line straight from the neo-conservatives, saying: "Have no doubt John Kerry will do whatever it takes to defend America, whether others approve or not." Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich energised the anti-war Democrats during the primary campaigns. They are now willingly inside the tent standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Democratic hawk Joe Lieberman (who wears an "I told you so" smile).

The desire among Democrats to get rid of George Bush produced a convention as disciplined as a party congress in the old Soviet Union. The anti-war faction acquiesced in the belief that only by stealing Republican clothes do they have a chance to get rid of the president who stole the election in 2000 and misled them to war. (Ron Kovic is still outside protesting. At an anti-war rally in California earlier this year, he said: "All of us are serving our country in voicing our opposition to this failed policy.")

Howard Dean's only comment on the war in his convention speech was to say he supported Kerry's foreign policy because "it relies on telling the truth to the American people before we send our brave American soldiers to fight in foreign lands."

However, by talking tough on national security, emphasising his own military service and praising the military uncritically (Abu Ghraib got no mention in convention speeches), Kerry confronted one of his main vulnerabilities and took the fight directly to the ground where George Bush has been most secure. He spoke beneath a huge American flag. He evoked the potent symbolism of The Star Spangled Banner as he described fighting in Vietnam in a boat flying a flag "shot through and through and tattered" but never ceasing to wave in the wind.

He promised to adopt a more aggressive homeland security policy, to accept the recommendations of the 9/11 commission on reforming intelligence, and to lead a drive against nuclear proliferation. He mocked Bush's 2000 promise to "restore honour and integrity to the Oval Office," saying he would "restore trust and credibility to the White House."

Kerry also took the fight to Bush on another issue where Democrats have been vulnerable, especially among blue-collar workers, that of family values. The perception that Republicans are stronger on family values has convinced millions of working-class and poor Americans to vote for the party of big business. Republicans have benefited from a popular revolt against a liberal establishment that is perceived as supporting abortion rights, gay marriage and flag-burning. The poorest county in the US, in Kansas, gave George Bush 80 per cent of the vote in 2000. As Thomas Frank concludes in his book What's Wrong With Kansas, "the prospect of lost jobs and lower wages are less troubling than slights on the 10 Commandments".

The unity in the conference allowed Kerry to play down hot button issues such as gun control and gay rights while hitting Bush with the admonition, "It is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families." Democrats believed in the family value expressed by the oldest Commandments, "Honour thy father and thy mother", he said, and this meant not cutting benefits, nor privatising social security, nor denying prescription-drug coverage nor allowing American jobs to be shipped overseas.

"You don't value familiesby kicking kids out of after-school programmes and taking cops off the streets so that Enron can get another tax break," he stated.

In another dig at Bush, who often makes religious references, he said: "I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve," and he got a huge cheer when he added he did not want to claim to be on God's side but "as Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side".

AS THE KERRY-Edwards bus takes to the road to sell the message, polls will quickly show whether Kerry closed the deal. Despite all the recent setbacks for the president, and the widespread unease with his leadership, Kerry has, until now, been unable to gain much ground among the public. This is partly because he has been depicted in an $80 million Republican advertising blitz as a tax-and-spend liberal, and a flip-flopper weak on security (in a sop to voters, Kerry promised to cut middle-class taxes).

Nor was he well known. However, aestimated 25 million people tuned in for his acceptance speech and saw a candidate, not aloof as he has been described, but praised by his kids as a loving father who cared so much for his daughter that he once administered CPR to her drowning hamster, and by former comrades in combat as a natural commander-in-chief who saved the life of a fellow-soldier under fire.

The Kerry-Edwards ticket can expect a bounce from the convention. It doesn't always happen. In 1972, Democratic candidate George McGovern got a zero lift after his convention. In 1992 Bill Clinton got a bounce of 16 points. The average is 6 per cent. That would be enough, if sustained, to win the White House for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Some Kerry strategists, downplaying expectations, say that Kerry has already got his bounce because many more voters than usual have already made up their minds.

The Republicans now have four weeks to formulate a response and seek their own surge in support when they gather in New York to make the case that they alone can make America safer against terrorists and an erosion of cultural values.