Return to the event page for How Would Each Candidate Govern?
View the summary for the George W. session
October 2004
As the presidential race tightens and Election Day draws near, now more than ever, important questions surrounding the governing styles of the two candidates need to be addressed. Growing interest in management skills has caused a marked increase in newspaper and magazine articles on John Kerry's past governing experiences and predictions on how President Bush would direct priorities in a second term. The AEI and Brookings Institutions series on "How Would They Govern?" has been at the forefront of this debate. The fourth and final installment of the series highlighted predictions on how the candidates would turn their promises into reality, how they would work with Congress, and how they would set legislative priorities. At an October 22 conference, Tom Downey, Downey McGrath Group; Nina Easton, Boston Globe, Thomas E. Mann, Brookings Institution; and AEI's Norman J. Ornstein discussed how Senator John Kerry would govern as president.
Nina Easton
Boston Globe
This 2004 presidential race is not just an ideological campaign, but an election involving candidates with two very different governing styles. There are two labels that come to mind when comparing President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry: the believer versus the thinker. Bush supporters claim that he has clarity of vision, boldness, and delegates easily, while his detractors argue that he is stubborn, relatively uniformed, and hesitant to reach out. Supporters of Senator John Kerry say that he looks through lots of information, has a probing mind, and tries to see many sides of an issue. This, his detractors claim, makes his message seem muddled, and portrays him as unclear about what he believes.
As a prosecutor, Kerry was credited with coming in and turning the district attorney's office into a very modern, efficient, successfully run office. He was recognized as being a good manager and apt at handling many innovative projects at one time. This executive decision-making style also made him a divisive figure in the office.
In the Senate, Kerry is much less effective as a lawmaker. He has a Socratic decision-making style and likes to play devil's advocate. He often keeps his staff guessing how he will vote on an issue. The downside of this process is, as some aides say, he frequently believes the last person he talks to. He has, however, made his mark as an investigator. His largest success in the Senate has been in the investigative role, especially on the MIA/POW counsel.
During the campaign his two governing styles have collided. He was very secretive about the Edwards selection, so as to control that process. He also has numerous aides, so many that some of them would like to take his cell phone away in order to focus his attention. In the last few weeks of the campaign he has become more focused, however, and appears to be a stronger, more decisive candidate than before.
Vietnam has shaped his military views for decades and is the overriding influence in all his foreign policy decision-making. He would not have voted in favor of the Iraqi resolution if he had not been running for the presidency. Although aides were fearful that a vote for the resolution would hurt him in the primary, he believed he could not win the general election if he voted against the resolution. What we have seen throughout the campaign, until recently, is his discomfort with that decision.
Tom Downey
Downey McGrath Group
When you try to determine how someone will govern as president, it is hard to look at the past as a guideline, because, by nature of the position, the presidency changes how one governs. In the Senate, one has time to deliberate and be Socratic. When one is in the White House, decisions must be made right away. It is more telling to look at Kerry during the debates, where he got right to the point and said what he was thinking with clarity and without hesitation. Kerry understands that he must hit the ground running. The campaign is good training ground for the difficulties of presidential decision-making.
Foreign policy will take an enormous amount of Kerry's time and energy. John Edwards will therefore take on a novel role as vice president. Edwards will have a much bigger domestic responsibility as Kerry handles foreign policy.
If Democrats control both houses of Congress, Kerry should package tax cuts and modest health care reforms to get them passed as soon as possible. If Republicans have a narrow majority in the House and Democrats narrowly control the Senate, Kerry must build on foreign policy successes, try to be accommodating on his proposals, and use the Senate to push the House to pass them. If there is no Democratic majority in either body, then Kerry will have to try his best to garner support. If Congress turns him down repeatedly and proves to be obstructionist, then he will have to spend two years building up his foreign policy resume and use the midterm election to run against Republicans.
Norman J. Ornstein
AEI
It is an exaggeration to say Kerry is the most liberal or one of the most liberal members in the Senate. He is definitely in the center of the Democratic Party, which is left of the country, but not of the party. Kerry does not really fit the standard, cookie-cutter liberal voting record--he is not Kennedy's equal in that respect. His liberal rating in last year's National Journal had more to do with the votes that he missed than those he actually cast.
Kerry's campaign has been very similar to Reagan's in 1980, when in the early fall of that year Reagan was accused of being unfocused and overly deliberative. This is not how we remember Reagan. It is likely that Kerry's persona as a flip-flopper has more to do with the aggressive campaign a challenger must wage than his inability to make a decision. As we saw with Reagan, it is difficult to extrapolate from Kerry's performance as a candidate what he will be like as a president.
Kerry is not a natural legislator. Despite his depth of knowledge and interest in many issues, he does not like to sit down to battle out the details of legislation. He has left a much more distinctive mark in exercising executive judgments--as commander of a swift boat, in the prosecutors office, and with the investigative role in the Senate. John Edwards by contrast is a much more natural legislator. He will in fact spend a lot of time as the administration's emissary working on domestic policy in Congress.
Thomas E. Mann
Brookings Institution
In evaluating how the candidates will govern, there is a natural tendency to focus on the personalities of the candidates during the campaign. But when you look realistically at what Kerry would face upon taking office--the policy inheritance of the Bush administration, a bitterly partisan Congress, and the volatile international situations that could occur once he takes office--one gets a much different perspective of what is involved with governing.
The day of inauguration, Kerry will most likely face a Republican-controlled Congress. The policies he wants to accomplish domestically--cutting back the tax cuts and implementing health care changes--will be very difficult, if not impossible, to do. First he must pass a reconciliation bill, and it seems unlikely that a Republican-controlled House will pass a favorable budget bill. From day one, Kerry will have to work to build relationships with discontent Republicans, and this will be difficult. Congress is fiercely divided, and it is unlikely that members will easily defect. Therefore he will have to put together policy packages on issues that will naturally attract moderate Republicans.
Kerry's first focus will be on foreign policy, such as early trips abroad to negotiate with our former allies. In the meantime, he will look for achievable domestic policy opportunities, holding off on his most ambitious plans. Political capital built up in the foreign policy arena can later be spent on the domestic front.
AEI research assistant Kimberly Spears prepared this summary.
Return to the event page for How Would Each Candidate Govern?
View the summary for the George W. session
