|
Edited on Sun May-14-06 03:20 PM by karynnj
There are really few people who are 100% real and comfortable in both of these roles. This may be why he really is so unique and special and why he doesn't fit perfectly into either group.
Even in the 1970s, from the books written in the 70s, many of the anti-war activists seemed put off (or jealous) of Kerry's ability to open doors that they couldn't. It wasn't just that he was more polite or that he had the contacts, he had the maturity and the diplomatic skills to know how to approach government leaders and people of power in the media. Beyond that, he had the goal of making a difference, not making a scene. All of those things are political skills which Kerry had even then.
What he did have in common with the activists was the passion in the causes he was behind, the energy to lead, and a believe that the people themselves had the power to change things- if they cared enough. Most politicians may say they believe that the power resides with the people in a democracy - but they act more on the "representative" part of representative democracy. Remember that Senator Stevens implied that Kerry's push to get people to call Senators to vote against ANWR was wrong. That view, that the representatives know more, is elitist.
I thought, naively, that many of Kerry's spring 2005 comments on the need for people to be activists were new and what he learned from 2004, but the words in his 1997(1996 ?) Senate speech when he and Wellstone reintroduced the clean election campaign sound very similar - when he spoke of the need to insure that citizens, not Fortune 500 companies, had a say.
By 2004, Kerry really was 3 very real things at the same time - an excellent, well regarded, articulate, pragmatic politician eloquently offering well thought out solutions, a passionate activist, and a person who had held the government accountable to following the law for 20 years. Once he won the nomination and had numbers showing him to have a real chance to win - the first "Kerry" was who he ran as. It made sense, as that was the model for the type of person who typically wins. Reading his biography, the other 2 "Kerrys", which really have always been there, made it seem almost a "secret" that there was so much more - that was good and needed - not shown.
In 2004, the time was not right for the other "Kerrys". How, in the wake of Reagan's death, could Kerry gain points speaking of his role in stopping Contra/drug running? How, when the bond to W was what it was, could Kerry bring up BCCI - where GHWB didn't do all he could to keep terrorists out of international banking? People were traumatized in 2004 and some still saw Bush as protecting the nation. People did not want to see the dirt swept under the rug - and Michael Moore and some serious journalists were there for those willing to look. Now, I think many 2008 candidate will claim accountability as one of their points and people see the ugly side of things.
Kerry did mention his protests, even in his acceptance speech, but it was shown as part of his past. There was no inkling of the fact that he still could be an activist even as a Senator when in the opposition. The reason for that he was making the case for himself as President. As President, he could say that he would listen (though not necessarily agree) and he would be approachable. These though come from who he seems to be - not from being an activist - as some of the people who listen the least are activists. (Imagine a few DU activists given any power.) Now McCain (!) is a champion of dissent - I would love it if it comes down to Kerry/McCain and he tries to say he thinks dissent is valuable.
McCain may now be pro-dissent- but as Tay Tay said Kerry's speeches on this are so personal, no one else can give them.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
