Their first reaction: censor! Or, more charitably, “we must protect the children from porn!” Senators Exon (D-NE) and Gorton (R-OR) introduced the “Communications Decency Act” in February of 1995 – a law that would’ve prohibited making any “indecent” or “patently offensive” material available on the Internet if people under age 18 could access it. What is “indecent” or “patently offensive”? Carlin’s comedy routine, information about sexually transmitted diseases on Planned Parenthood’s web site, dialogue from Shakespeare… if you wanted to illustrate exactly what the First Amendment was written to prohibit, the CDA made a great example. It was so blatantly prohibited censorship that the Rehnquist Supreme Court struck it down 9-0 in 1997.
But first, it had to pass Congress. They voted in February of 1996. In both the House and Senate, few wanted to appear as “soft on porn”; large majorities jumped on the “protect the children” bandwagon. But there was strong opposition, from the ACLU and a coalition of libaries, bookstores, computer companies, civic groups, and others, including the American Libary Association, Microsoft, the RIAA, and Apple. In the Senate, opposition to the CDA was organized by Senators Leahy of Vermont and Kennedy of MA. The final vote was 84-16 in favor.
Kerry should’ve been one of those 16. His colleague, Kennedy, was leading the opposition. He’d never been a censor, and he knew better than to support this bill. I called his office shortly before the vote, and they gave me a non-answer implying that he understood this bill was not good, but hadn’t decided yet. He voted yes.
My first reaction was to feel angry and betrayed. Kerry was one I thought we could count on to stand up to this kind of idiocy. Why did he vote yes while his friend Kennedy was leading the charge for “no”? Then something crystallized: John Kerry is running for president.
My new theory of Kerry came together for me after the CDA betrayal. I had not misunderstood Kerry’s politics in the 80s. He’s still smart, and he still has those liberal convictions. Most of the time, he votes for what he believes. But every once in a while, a vote of political import comes up, on a hot button issue, where he calculates that it will have an effect on his national reputation when he runs for president. On those votes, and those votes only, he votes defensively. Regardless of what he thinks is the correct vote, he takes the vote that he belives won’t be a liability. In this case, voting “for porn for children” was a liability, and yes on the CDA was the defensive vote.
From that point on, I followed Kerry’s career with my new theory of Kerry in mind, and I was no longer surprised. No longer did I have cognitive dissonance, trying to figure out the votes that made no sense. They all made sense now: they were defensive votes as part of a run for president. And it explains how he managed to maintain one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate overall, while still seeming like a triangulating centrist to so many of us. The dichotomy was real – the real Kerry, vs. the presidential candidate Kerry.
When the vote on Iraq came at the end of 2002, I thought Kerry opposed invading Iraq, but I expected him to vote yes.
Ironically, that vote almost cost him the nomination, and probably did cost him the presidency. But it was the correct defensive vote, at the time, according to (misguiged) conventional wisdom.
When Kerry lost the 2004 election, I thought the silver lining would be that he’d finally stop, and we’d get the old Kerry back. I was dismayed to see him start setting up for a future run. But now, finally, he’s given that up.
Do we get the old Senator Kerry back now?
I have always thought that Senator Kerry was playing to Ohiowa, not Stockbridge, Cambridge, or any bridge in between.
<
p>
He has a boatload of fence-mending to do.
Your explanation of Kerry’s occasional mind-boggling voting is plausible; however, it certainly didn’t help his run for President. Perhaps other representatives and senators will look at his (failed) example and decline the “safe” vote in the future.
<
p>
Then again, Kerry is neither the first nor the last Massachusetts politician who has subverted his current office in trying to achieve better position for a future office. We need look no farther than the previous occupant of the governor’s office for an example.
<
p>
Would that more politicians were willing to annoy some people in doing their jobs, instead of trying to be everything to everyone in their nominal base.
Having said all that, I’m not at all certain that we’re going to get Kerry back. If he’s still pondering another run at the White House in 2012, we could be in for the same bewildering ride.
His window of opportunity is past. He’s 65 ish right now, it’s not an easy task to run for Presient at 70. I would be very, very surprised if he ran again.
The thing nobody ever seems to pick up on is Kerry as a bit of a stiff-necked loner. In fact he often calls his own shots, and not in an especially politically deft way. (I am tempted to add, alas.)
<
p>
He was a figure in the anti-war movement in his youth, but not an institutional figure. Most anti-war activists distrusted him, and he did not care. He is not especially liked in the Senate.
<
p>
The merging of this part of his character with the cautious criteria of presidential ambition was always awkward. At the same time, don’t expect him to follow any particular orthodoxy; that’s not his nature.
<
p>
The baffling thing is that none of his campaign geniuses figured out that in America the persona of loner can be attractive, even heroic.
He could have been a great candidate. But he wasn’t. If he had just been himself the whole time, I have no doubt he would have won. Instead, the DC elite insiders infultrated his campaign – with his full blessing.
Based on my analysis from observing his career, Kerry was exactly the candidate he would’ve been, no infiltration needed. And it is sad, I agree – I think the John Kerry of the 80s could’ve won the 2004 election.
<
p>
If he had just been himself the whole time, I doubt he’d have voted for blatant unconstitutional censorship in 1996, and I doubt he’d have voted for a contrived and disastrous war in 2002. That war vote, right there, was one of his biggest liabilities, because to beat Bush in 2004 one needed to run against the Iraq war and Kerry didn’t let himself do that.
<
p>
The way I see it, he started not “being himself” about ten years earlier, because he was preparing to run for president. So what we saw in 2004 was the kind of Kerry he had decided to be for his presidential run, and the kind of campaign he’d been preparing himself for for a long time.