Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

■"The Post-Debate Contest: Swaying Perceptions," by Jim Rutenberg, New York Times, 4 October 2004, p. A1.

■"As Dealines Hit, Rolls of Voters Show Big Surge: Record Numbers Are Seen; Election Workers Are in Overdrive Processing New Registrations," by Kate Zernike and Ford Fessenden, New York Times, 4 October 2004, p. A1.

■"Kerry, Newest Neocon," op-ed by Willaim Safire, New York Times, 4 October 2004, p. A29.

Everyone knew Kerry would do well in the debate, and he did. What was surprising was how poorly Bush fared. I watched the debates in 2000, and Gore really seemed to go out of his way to lose them, something staunch Republicans fear Bush is in the process of doing now.

The President seemed tired, burned-out and defensive. He seemed to be carrying the whole world on his shoulders. If you didn't know he is the man, you came away from the debate thinking Kerry was more presidential.

Again, I didn't the debate, so I'm just going off mass media and conversations I've had with people as I travel and move about, and I was surprised how many Bush supporters really felt let down by his performance. It's enough to make you wonder how much his heart is really in it after four tough years in office.

As for the effect on the polls, it's hard for Kerry's camp to be happier: they immediately pulled even in all polls and ahead in some, although everything fell within the margin of error. To me, that's like the first Reagan-Carter debate in 1980: all of sudden the challenger Reagan seems a lot more credible, the incumbent Carter seems a lot more burned out and clueless, and people supporting the challenger seem far more energized to come out and vote.

This will be a very close election, so the questions of voter-registration and absentee ballots are huge. So far, the numbers on both suggest a very large turnout, in fact the biggest number of new voters since 1992—another time when a surging challenger knocked out a seemingly burned-out president.

The surge in new voter registration in key swing states shows the length to which both sides in this presidential election are going to make sure sentiment is matched by action on 2 November. But clearly, the Dems seem to be doing better, as the biggest gains are not occurring in the suburbs, but in the big city areas, especially among minorities and low-income.

I gotta admit, as a Kerry supporter who up to now has felt little reason for cheer, his chances look a whole lot better after the first debate. The swing vote to me is all about whether people feel frightened enough about a second Bush administration to get off their butts and vote. The Bush camp is solid: they like what their man did for the last four years. And the Kerry camp is solid: they want anyone but Bush. It's all about those left over who have to decide that, even if they generally like Bush (or don't hate him enough to do anything), are they spooked enough about another four years of pedal to the metal on tax cuts and a war on terrorism to vote? Or do they basically approve of the tough stances Bush has taken on terrorism and war and assume it's better not to switch horses?

Again, to me, Kerry's best point in the debate was to say that he thinks we can win in Iraq/Middle East, just that he doesn't think we can win with the current president. That's basically my take on the election: Bush was right for the last four years, but he hasn't sold me on being right for the next four years unless he's willing to become a deal-making, coalition-building foreign policy president in his second term, and I think that would be far too much a stretch for his crew, who are more likely to get very conservative in the second term and stick to more go-it-alone issues like getting tough with China, missile defense, etc.

Kerry will be forced by the international security environment to be as much a hawk as Bush war (Safire's point), but the question is one of approach, not direction. Where Bush took us in the last four years required that we lead boldly and step out ahead of the pack, but I don't think that's where we need to go in the next four years because—having achieved that international momentum in many of the right places—now we need to throttle down on our unilateral tendencies and let the rest of the Core catch up to us in understanding and willingness to act. Getting their buy-in will require some real compromises on our part, and I simply see Kerry being more willing to make those deals happen—sort of a Clinton on globalization security issues. Bush, on the other hand, I fear will end up being too embattled in his second term, especially if the election is close and the public is deeply embittered by the process again.

Readers will send me many emails protesting this analysis, saying "surely the Bush people will pursue your vision far more in the next four years than Kerry's will!" That may be true for the next four years, but the vision isn't simply about the next presidential term, it's about the long-run pursuit of a grand strategy to make globalization global, end disconnectedness that defines the Gap, and winning this war on terrorism. That grand strategy will feature periods of go-fast and go-slower. I think we're due for a go-slower period that allows the rest of the Core powers to adjust, and to pursue deals from us that show we're committed to generating a happy ending that involves the entirety of the Core and not just "U.S. interests." In short, my fears for the next four years have less to do with the Gap getting out of control (I think Bush's Big Bang strategy in the Middle East is working quite nicely, thank you) than the Core splintering. When I think of that particular danger, Kerry gives me more of a warm and fuzzy than Bush, despite my serious hopes for a legacy-minded second term for him.

And then there's the debt . . ..

As for the military's evolution, that is going to happen no matter who gets elected and it will happen primarily for economic and opportunity reasons, meaning the costs and ubiquity of peacekeeping/nation-building efforts will force the Leviathan side of the house to draw down its grip on resources, thus transforming it even more, while the Sys Admin side will continue to grow and demand more resources, triggering ever more civilianization and internationalization of the process. When I look at those two inevitabilities, I believe the Dems are more amenable to letting that happen than the GOP, which still features too many hardliners on both China and missile defense.