Values

Bob Herbert get's it right his column today in the Times: Cheney and Edwards might offer us the clearest picture of the opposing values represented by the two presidential tickets.

Certainly, Herbert is biased; but I think, objectively, this his premise is quite true. After the hubub of charisma and hair and chemistry dies down, we will hear the substance of Edwards, Kerry's, Bush's and Cheney's speeches during the remaining months before early November. Herbert writes:

Domestically there are two very divergent paths looming on such issues as the economy and jobs, taxes, health care, Social Security and government support for education. It is in this area that the differences between the two major parties are starkest, and as the campaign unfolds it's likely that the clearest evidence of the divide will come not from the top of the respective tickets, but from John Edwards and Dick Cheney.
...
Dick Cheney believes, and has acknowledged (which is rare), that one of the main reasons for cutting taxes is to starve the government of resources. In an interview published in The New Yorker in May 2001, the vice president said, "If we collect those taxes, government'll spend 'em."

"So to some extent," he added, "by preventing government from collecting taxes that it currently has no use for, we avoid a situation in which we collect them and spend them and put them into the baseline to become a permanent part of the government."

That's a statement of values from a man who is proud of his hard-right political credentials. According to Time magazine, "The Washington Post once referred to Cheney the congressman as a `moderate,' prompting him to order an aide to call the paper's editors and `suggest they look at my voting record.' "
...
Senator Edwards is as straightforward as the vice president about his own views and values, which can fairly be called populist. Mr. Edwards objects to what he calls the "two Americas," and believes government has an obligation to try to maximize opportunities for everyone. "We will say no," he says, "to kids going hungry, to the kids who don't have the clothes to keep them warm, and no forever to any American working full time and living in poverty."

This will not be an election between tweedledum and tweedledee. Charisma and hairstyles aside, by November it should be apparent that voters will have a clear and unambiguous choice about the direction this nation is to travel over the next several years.

So, yeah...it's clear Herbert is shining light on one and making the other look like a wack-o radical. I think, though, that the premise of vice-presidential-clarity will prove correct.

Bush and Kerry both fail to communicate effectively. Bush is too generic and broad, and thus rides on PR; Kerry is too detailed and careful. Bush probably talks and understands policy sufficiently in conversation. Kerry forgets he is not in conversation but at a podium. The two are not great communicators.

Cheney has an air of straight-talk. He and Edwards are both able to simplify issues and communicate a point of view without losing some kernel of clarity. As Herbert remarks, Cheney lays his view of less goverment out in the sunny fields. Edwards is less the gruff-talker. Rather, he has a strange ability to sound conversational while giving a powerful speech. He quite often asks to "step-back a bit" to walk the hearer through his analysis. And in doing so, he makes clear where his decision-making and the opponent's diverge.

The two will be fun to watch. My only hope is that the media will play them out without loading on their own annoying and spin-ified analysis.