President Bush continues to successfully portray John Kerry's deliberative and granular way of thinking as a bad thing. In a "time of terror," Bush claims, one must exercise unwavering conviction and uncompromising certainty. To be a "flip-flopper," then, is to be weak and without convictions.
Voters have so far bought into this logic, where polls show that most prefer the candidate they perceive to be simpler and less deliberative. This suggests that the election is a contest for the simplest and most decisive candidate. Normally that would not be a bad thing. But today that formulation, it seems, ignores the real measure of a candidate: who can do the best job of leading the United States? Bush says he can do a better job than Kerry because he has convictions where Kerry has none. As Bush stated last week, "you cannot pivot in the war on terror if you expect to win."
Bush would have voters believe that is the case. Republicans undermine at every opportunity Kerry's credibility as a strong decision-maker. By citing Kerry's "nine different positions" on Iraq, Republican strategists portray Kerry as indecisive, and thus less fit for duty when compared to Bush (who has a dense history of decisive decision-making). This trick appears to be working, since it seems most voters buy into the idea that decisiveness is the criteria by which to judge a candidate.
Thus voters are lead to believe that Kerry is weak because he lacks conviction. To be fair, Kerry has done little to combat his label of "flip-flopper." There is some truth to Bush's charge in last week's debates that "the only thing consistent about [Kerry] is his inconsistency." His history as a war-fighter turned war-protestor, and his current habit of rallying one cause in one state only to scorn it in another, feed Republican claims.
Nevertheless, Kerry is judged weak because he changes opinions so readily. Does Kerry's constantly changing mind or seeming lack of conviction necessarily translate into a weak leader?
The real question, it seems, is whether Bush's decisiveness necessarily translates into a superior leader. After all, one could safely argue that Bush's unforgiving push for "going it alone" in Iraq contributes to the current difficulties there. By the same token, one can relate Bush's annual tax cut habit to America's current reliance on foreign currency.
So does decisiveness necessarily translate into the best job of leading? It could, but not necessarily. Just because Kerry cannot come to a single decision -- at least as abruptly as Bush -- does not mean he cannot do a sound job of leading the country. In fact, he might actually do a better job.
A deliberative mind might be more capable of distilling diverse and opposing views. Bush proved that when listening to limited views you run the risk of limiting yourself to bogus or false information. Whether or not Iraq is the consequence of limited views, America's presence there would have benefited from additional sources of information.
A mind less intent on classifying the world as black and white, good or evil, might be more capable of seeing shades of grey.
On one end of the globe you have to fight terror, and on the other deal with a rising Chinese superpower; you have to keep oil flowing in the Middle East, yet secure nuclear material in Russia; you have to maintain good relations with Pakistan, yet keep an eye on North Korea. Bush claims that "as the politics change my opponent's policies change" -- how is that not a good thing in today's nuanced environment?
A vacillating mind -- capable of one day fighting in a war and fighting against it the next -- could prove more capable of breaking with obsolete policy. After all, there is no guarantee that what works in homeland security today will work tomorrow. The President of the United States should be capable of formulating dynamic responses for dynamic events -- not sticking to one as if it were creed.
In short, Kerry the "flip-flopper" could actually be a good leader. Many miss the point when saying votes should go to the most decisive candidate. What if the candidate is so decisive they are decisively wrong? As Kerry reminded voters last week -- "it's one thing to be certain and correct, and another to be certain and wrong."
-- Michael Huerta is a junior Mathematical Sciences major.
