It's all downhill

The last two weeks of an election cycle always seem to draw out both the best and worst characteristics of candidates for office. Mostly we see only the worst. I don't know if it is because the candidates begin to get a little panicky when they don't have a clear lead in the polls, or if its because their campaign team saves its dirtiest tricks for the bitter end. Maybe it's a little of both.

Whatever the reason, fearmongering is in fashion this campaign season. John Kerry has suggested that President Bush is going to bring back the draft and privatize Social Security if reelected. As pure demagoguery, these allegations are not too far-fetched. Everyone knows or suspects that Bush does want to in some way privatize Social Security. Calling it Bush's "January surprise", Kerry has documentation to back up his assertion, a New York Times Magazine article in which the President is quoted as giving an unambiguous picture of his first priorities upon regaining office, "I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in ... with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security." The President's own words make the Bush Campaign's scream of "dirty trick" seem rather lame. However, in their defense, President Bush said in the final debate last week that no Senior would ever see a cut in Social Security benefits. The checks will keep coming. Whether that is a promise he can keep, when his privatization plan would take so many younger workers' money out of the Social Security system, is another story.

The draft allegation, on the other hand, is factually groundless. The irony is that indeed recently there was a bill before Congress to reinstate the draft, but it was sponsored by two Democrats. When a "no hope" vote on that bill was forced, the only two "yes" votes for the draft were the two Democrats who sponsored it. Barring North Korea crossing the 38th Parallel, there is no need for a draft no matter how overextended our forces are in Iraq; and there is certainly no political viability in the idea. Would Bush be more likely to reinstate the draft than Kerry? Unlikely, again for political reasons. After such a long period of having a volunteer-only army, calling for a reinstatement of the draft without the impetus of a military threat would be suicide for the party sponsoring the idea.

For his part, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have adopted a fearmongering tactic of their own, not seen since President Johnson insinuated that a vote for Goldwater was a vote for nuclear annihilation. Essentially, the message of the Bush campaign in these final days is that a vote for Kerry is a vote for one's own murder by Muslim fanatics. Cheney's remark that if Americans make the "wrong choice" on November 2nd, another terrorist attack is inevitable, is only the most remarked upon example of this peculiarly bold brand of demagoguery. Many independently funded groups are taking President Bush's message of imminent doom directly to the people in the form of visually provocative advertisements. One called "Progress For America" is airing an ad showing pictures of Osama and his cohorts with the catchy slogan, intoned by one of those announcers who sound like the Voice of God (or Darth Vader), "These people want to kill us. Would you trust Kerry against these fanatic killers?" Considering that Kerry has actually shot someone dead in combat,"Yes Sir, I would."

Scare tactics are ever a part of politics as practiced in the United States. However, I cannot remember a time when such tactics were used so broadly and repeatedly, and without censure from either the media or the citizenry. At a time in the campaign when voters seem already locked into their choices, and the undecided voter is harder and harder to come by, the campaigns seem to be showing some desperation. How else does one explain explicit threats that a vote for the "other" guy will result in the voter either being murdered, drafted, or made poorer?