Clarity Will Win Presidency
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

We know what Senator Kerry wants the American presidential election to be about: job creation, an ally-friendly foreign policy, the affordability of health insurance – all the issues that fit the focus group-approved phrase, “strong at home, respected around the world.”
And we know what President Bush wants the election to be about: domestic security and the war on terror.
Too bad. It’s become plain what the election is really about, the issue that underlies all others: clarity. Which candidate knows how to explain to voters what it is he wants to do?
This unexpected turn in what political hacks call the “issue landscape” is good news for Mr. Bush, bad news for Mr. Kerry. And it is certain to arise Thursday evening when the two rivals face each other in Florida for the first of three presidential debates.
Having lost his slim but solid summertime lead, Mr. Kerry now trails Mr. Bush in most polls. The latest CBS News poll contains one set of numbers that illustrates Mr. Kerry’s clarity problem.
To the question, “Does George W. Bush say what he believes most of the time?” 55% said yes. Forty-two percent said he “says what people want to hear.”
And Mr. Kerry? Only 30% said he says what he believes most of the time. A large majority – 65% – agreed he says only what people want to hear.
Bush strategists are relentless in exploiting this lopsided perception. Mr. Bush lards his stump speeches with rhetorical devices meant to underscore the simplicity of his views and his resolve to carry them out.
Speaking before friendly crowds – the only kind candidates allow themselves to face this far into an election year – Mr. Bush tees up his policy statements with such phrases as “Let me be clear,” or “Make no mistake,” or “You know where I stand.”
The contrast with Mr. Kerry is not meant to be subtle. Earlier this month, the Republican National Committee distributed a mini-documentary on Mr. Kerry’s views on the Iraq war. It is tendentious in its message and unsettling in its effect – all the more so because it consists almost entirely of Mr. Kerry’s own words.
Mr. Kerry is shown in a 2001 television appearance calling Saddam Hussein a “terrorist” who must be dealt with as part of the “global menace” of terrorism. In May of 2003, after the successful invasion of Iraq, Mr. Kerry says it was the “right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein.”
Then in January of this year, with Howard Dean’s anti-war campaign roiling the primaries, Mr. Kerry is asked on the TV program “Hardball,” “Are you one of the antiwar candidates?” His reply: “I am – yeah.”
There’s much more along these lines, but oddly, the RNC video isn’t exhaustive; it omits several statements that would only reinforce the impression of Kerry’s confused – or at least confusing – views.
In a Democratic presidential debate on Dec. 16, 2003, for example, Mr. Kerry blasted Dr. Dean, who had described the Iraq war as “the wrong war at the wrong time.”
“Those who believe that we are not safer with [Saddam’s] capture,” Mr. Kerry said, “don’t have the judgment to be president.”
By September 6, 2004, however, Mr. Kerry was himself appropriating Dr. Dean’s phrase: Iraq, Mr. Kerry said, is “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Then there’s Mr. Kerry’s answer to his own rhetorical question at a Washington dinner speech on August 6: “Now, might we have wound up going to war with Saddam Hussein? You bet we might have.”
Mr. Kerry’s mixed signals – the toughness of “you bet,” the diffidence of “we might have” – have led directly to this CBS poll result: Asked how much confidence they had in Mr. Kerry’s ability to make the right decisions in Iraq, 21% said a lot, 30% said some, 28% said not much, 20% said none at all.
The Bush campaign wants to portray Mr. Kerry’s reversals as “flip-flops,” the back-and-forthing of a cynical pol. There are better explanations. One is that Mr. Kerry hasn’t quite made up his mind about Iraq and wants to leave his options open. Another is that he finds his own views too subtle and complicated to squeeze into the crude categories of sound-bite politics.
“Subtle and complicated,” however, doesn’t play well in presidential campaigns or made-for-TV debates. What does play well?
Consider this story, an often-repeated favorite among Texas reporters who covered Mr. Bush’s 1994 campaign against incumbent Texas governor Ann Richards.
In their televised debate, Mr. Bush was asked about pending legislation to legalize casino gambling.
“I’m against casino gambling,” Mr. Bush said. And then he stopped speaking.
Ms. Richards’ answer was subtle and complicated, touching on tribal rights and competing claims, saying she didn’t think gambling was a suitable way to raise revenue, and that the bill might not pass the legislature in any case – and if it did, well, she would leave her options open.
In rebuttal, Mr. Bush was asked whether he would like to elaborate.
“Not really,” he said. And then came the half-smile, the shrug, the cocked head, the smirk – all the mannerisms that repulse his adversaries.
Mr. Bush’s handling of the question may have been simple-minded, it may have been crude. But it was clear – and in debates, clarity wins. In elections, too.
Mr. Ferguson is a columnist for Bloomberg News.