In a race whose only mission is to unseat President Bush, voters will seek out the candidate most likely to perform that task.
Popular opinion believes John Kerry stands the best chance of accomplishing this. Kerry's victory in two more states Wednesday affirmed the Democratic Party's desire to nominate man who can defeat Bush.
But with this it seems that the primaries are reminiscent of the 2000 elections, where the media likened the choice between Al Gore and George Bush as choosing the lesser of two evils. Today, it seems that Democrats are choosing the lesser of many evils, while simultaneously convincing themselves that a single popular candidate is better than many not-so popular candidates.
Unfortunately this mentality leaves many of political issues untouched and only superficially scanned. For most Democrats, coming to an agreement about who will most likely defeat Bush is more important than the issues facing voters. It seems that the candidates focus more on their fitness as an alternative to Bush rather than their ability to tackle political issues.
Howard Dean's initial popularity among voters shows this phenomenon. As a true reactionary, Dean's popularity was due less to his substance as a political agent than his ability to inspire in people a hope of beating Bush. Dean sold Democrats the idea of defeating Bush while simultaneously selling himself as the man most fit to do so; hence his popularity.
Starting with Dean, Democrats in this campaign have sold the idea that only by defeating Bush could the concerns of voters be tackled. With the exception of perhaps John Edwards, who detailed his policies in a public memo, Democratic candidates are largely content with sweeping the concerns of voters under the rug in favor of the one-size-fits-all "Defeat Bush" solution.
If Democrats believe that ills of the nation will be cured with the simple defeat of Bush, then the next question should be, "What will happen after Bush?" Will unemployment suddenly fall? Will Iraq suddenly democratize? Will healthcare finally be affordable?
Only the short-term concerns of voters will be met with the defeat of Bush. Unless voters take their eyes off the short-term goal of defeating Bush this fall, the long-term political issues that determine voter sentiments after November will remain undiscussed.
The only candidate who has made an effort to examine -- if not acknowledge -- the long-term political horizon is the Reverend Al Sharpton. Perhaps this is just one more reason why the Reverend seems so out of vogue with voters today. He refuses to look at what everyone else's eye is trained on -- the short-term goal of unseating Bush.
Instead, he looks toward increasing voter registration, increasing political awareness and getting more people involved in the political process.
Other candidates do share Sharpton's goals. But what makes Kerry's interest in political awareness among non-voters different from Sharpton's is that Kerry takes the process of creating political awareness for granted, while Sharpton does not.Sharpton makes it a point to address issues that matter to voters. And though Sharpton also holds a desire to unseat Bush, he does not blind himself or voters with that prospect.
The best example of this is the black vote. Most Democrats today, as many critics have said before, take for granted the fact that African-American minorities vote Democratic. In this election one hears little talk of race and of courting the black vote. With the exception of Sharpton, who in South Carolina single-handedly increased black voter registration two-fold, no other candidate attempts to garner black votes.
This shortsightedness will hurt Democrats and help Republicans. If Democrats become overly preoccupied with unseating Bush and allow Republicans to create the discourse with voters, the eventual Democratic nominee will both fail to unseat Bush and lose Democratic voters.
Just as Bush is accused of considering only the short-term consequences of War in Iraq, so are Democrats wrong in considering only the short-term gains of unseating Bush. Democrats ought to look to Sharpton's radical campaign to win the interests of voters rather than look toward their desire to unseat Bush.
Michael Huerta's column appears every two weeks.
