A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

For clues about 2020 campaign, look back to 2004

John Gress/Reuters/File
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry gestures toward President George W. Bush while answering a question during the town hall format debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, October 8, 2004.

Dear reader:

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the 2004 campaign – and all the ways in which the current cycle resembles it.

In 2003, Democrats were intent on ousting an incumbent Republican who had previously lost the popular vote, and whom many labeled one of the worst presidents in history. Liberals accused President George W. Bush of being dumb and dishonest , having taken the nation into a controversial war in Iraq under false pretenses.

Why We Wrote This

The 2004 campaign cycle was the last time Democrats were faced with trying to oust a Republican president. The way voters are evaluating their candidates feels strikingly similar.

They also worried (correctly, as it turned out) that they might not be able to beat him. The 2004 Democratic primary was highly focused on “electability,” as the party debated which of its candidates would be strongest against President Bush. Should they nominate a liberal antiwar outsider who fired up young people and electrified the base? Or go with an establishment type whose résumé seemed less easy to demonize?

In the end, Democrats went with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, whose record of military service and vote in favor of the Iraq War made him seem to many the safest pick. And they lost.

The analogy isn’t exact, of course. President Donald Trump has never enjoyed the kind of approval ratings that President Bush saw in the wake of 9/11 – and Democrats’ animosity toward him makes the “Bush hatred” of the early 2000s look positively genial by comparison.

 Still, 2004 might offer some lessons when it comes to the current campaign. For one thing, it suggests the outcome in Iowa will be crucial. Senator Kerry did not actually lead in the polls at this point in the cycle – but his win in Iowa clearly shaped the race from that point on. When a party is searching for an “electable” candidate, the best way to meet that criteria is often by winning.

At the same time, as 2004 made clear, “electability” is a slippery thing. Aspects of Senator Kerry’s candidacy that were presumed to be strengths during the primary were turned into weaknesses over the course of the general election (remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?).

Some progressives today have been pointing to the 2004 campaign as evidence that timidity in politics doesn’t work. Yet it’s also worth remembering that the 2004 election was, in the end, relatively close. And it’s entirely possible that a more liberal candidate like Vermont Gov. Howard Dean would have lost in a landslide – along the lines of another campaign cycle that some analysts have been citing of late: 1972.

Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.