Perils of Debate

However, consistency and belief are ultimately measured in a campaign. Kerry's reputation for flip-floppy is partly the result of the academic debater's instinctive tendency to please the audience immediately in front of him; to win the present argument irrespective of long term consistency.

Early in the primary campaign, Kerry was hawkish on the war because he felt that would play well in the general election. He quickly switched to a more dovish position, when it appeared that Governor Howard Dean was igniting support among Democrats. That is why it is so easy to find contradictory statements from Kerry.

Not long ago Kerry said that Iraq was the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Now he says he will persuade allies to join us in pursuing the war. It is even hard for a clever debater to convince allies to join in what Kerry has already so forcefully and categorically characterized as a mistake.

As a measure of his rhetorical skill, in a single response, Kerry was able to say that both no country would have a veto power in preventing actions to defend the United States and at the same time saying some global test would have to be passed. These examples represent contradictions that are difficult to sustain.

As forceful and fluent as Kerry's words were in the debate, they will come into direct conflict with contrary, equally eloquent words he has already spoken. Campaigns are not a debate, where the arguments in the previous rounds are ignored. Kerry has laid the foundation to sustain the Republican argument that Kerry has no fixed position.

Go To Page: 1 2