How to Slay a Giant in Politics (6/29/03)

by Dean Hartwell 

Recently, I heard that President Bush raised more money this year for the 2004 election than all of the Democratic candidates combined for the first quarter of the year.  It reminded me of the biblical story of David and Goliath.

The ten-foot tall Goliath of the Philistines terrorized David’s people, the Israelis.  He dared King Saul of Israel to send his leading warrior to duel him.  The winner’s people would rule over the loser’s people.

When no one else volunteered, little David stepped forward.  He took only a slingshot and five stones to fight Goliath, who was armed with a sword.  Catching the giant completely by surprise, David unleashed a stone and struck Goliath in the forehead.  The giant fell, allowing David to take his sword and behead Goliath with it.

 

How does this story relate to the politics of the upcoming presidential contest?

 

The Democrats can learn a lesson as they prepare to battle for the right to take on Bush, a giant of a fundraiser.  The Democratic nominee need not be the best candidate at fundraising.  He or she must instead be the best prepared, the most able to adapt to changing situations, and the quickest at seizing opportunities to advance.

 

Preparation means having a coherent set of ideas to discuss, much like David’s five stones.  Ideally, the candidate can articulate the ideas with depth and clarity.  Many Democratic candidates have criticized President Bush for going to war against Iraq.  These candidates must be prepared to look voters in the eye and explain not only the error in the Bush policy, but also what the Bush Administration should instead have done.

 

Since the winds of politics frequently change, the Democrats must be prepared to make adjustments in the same way David abandoned his sword and selected his slingshot.  They should remember Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to speak to the public on the recently invented radio.  They should remember John Kennedy’s push for the first televised presidential debates, which helped propel him to a close victory over Richard Nixon.  In this campaign, they could adapt to using the Internet, which has developed into an effective way to distribute campaign information and to raise money.

 

In terms of opportunities, the Democrats, like David, should take advantage of the enemy’s mistakes.  Goliath made the mistake of underestimating David and failing to duck when David’s rock flew toward him.  Bush may not make the mistake of underestimating the Democrat, but may blunder by failing to give the public a full explanation as to why he insisted that the United States had to invade Iraq.  Absent that explanation, the Democrats have a bona fide issue for 2004.

 

The Democratic nominee can win the next election by following the David strategy.  Despite the strong possibility of being outspent, the Democrats have some advantages: they lead in holding opinions closest to what the voters hold, the poor economy may continue to haunt President Bush and the deficits cast doubts upon Bush's ability to manage the budget.  It remains to be seen if one of the candidates can step forward like David and take advantage of these factors to make a victory happen.

 

Archives