Pure bitter resentment separates the Democrat and Republican voter bases.

Political mirroring measures a society's level of civil strife. The more political parties mirror each other, the more passion, not ideas, distinguishes the two parties and their supporters.

In 2004, America's two political parties have practically merged on key issues. Each has a prescription for more jobs, better health care, anti-terrorist strategies. But, in one important way they are different and have literally switched strategies.

The positions were opposite a few years back. Democrats held the White House. Republican loyalists counted the days to vote Bill Clinton out of office; all they needed was a candidate. They used extracurricular means to hasten the process. They impeached him but he survived. Resentment only grew stronger, and on Election Day, Republicans rushed to the polls. The result was not what they wanted it, however: A gray victory.

Moreover, the disputed 2000 election set in motion a powerful reaction. For example, Democrats in San Francisco still go out of their way to avoid referring to G.W. Bush as the President.

So it's the reaction we're seeing. The Democrats are mirroring the Republican's nineties. All they need is a candidate -- a candidate that can win. If possible they'd like the fallen Dean's fiery rhetoric, with Kerry's military record and Edward's down home friendliness. They're settling on Kerry..

There's the rub. For several years, the Republican party was loose, weak bonded coalition that united only by a strong candidate. On the national level, that took Ronald Reagan and G. W. Bush. In California, it took a Hollywood superstar.

The democrats, on the other hand, stay united by sharing the public trough. Disparate coalition members stand together because each receives a piece of the governmental pie. For Democrats, the presidential candidate wasn't as important as the coalition.

Not this time. On most issues, democrats are divided. In 2004, not even a strong candidate will hold the coalition together. Rather it's the deep contempt for G.W. Bush that fires their campaign engines. It will motivate the base, provide the democrat candidate a solid 40% of the vote.

The republican base is less motivated than in 2000. There's no Clinton to despise (even if a Clinton should occupy the vice presidential nomination.) Still, the President and his party will also garner 40% of the vote. That leaves the margin of victory to independents and less passionate members of each party.

Here expect independent to agree with the President who told a group of GOP governors that he'll win but it will be close. Independents aren't passionate about their politics. They make intuitional decisions, and they decide late.

The more the Democrats base the campaign on passion and hatred, the more independent voters will be unimpressed.

That's the dilemma. For example, Kerry was forced to go hawk on foreign policy prior to Super Tuesday by advocating for "a bold, progressive internationalism -- backed by undoubted military might -- that commits America to lead in the cause of human liberty and prosperity." He has to compete with the President's aggressive foreign policy if he expects to capture the independent vote.

So the 2004 presidential race will be decided on Republican terms. Candidate personality not ideas will be the margin of victory. The issues are too cloudy, and the parties are too similar when it comes to foreign policy, the economy, jobs, and health care. President Bush neutralized the Democrats big ticket issues: education and health care, with programs that resonated with the voters.

It will be two strong candidates battling it out in the field and in the debates. And as the President predicted last week, it will be close but the incumbent will win. Let's hope not as close as 2000. The nation can't afford another four years of doubt and resentment.

Write to Arthur at bruzzone@rightturns.com

Arthur Bruzzone   is an award-winning public affairs television producer/host and has written over 250 political articles for national and regional media. He has commented on political and urban issues for American and European television and radio networks. His articles and columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Campaign & Elections Magazine, among other publications. Mr. Bruzzone holds a Masters Degree in Philosophy from C.U.A in Washington , D.C., and a M.B.A. in real estate. He is a returned Peace Corps volunteer serving two years in the Kingdom of Tonga, and the former chair of the San Francisco Republican Party. He served as a California state commissioner on a major environmental regulatory agency. He presently is president of a real estate investment company headquartered in San Francisco, CA.

© 2004 RightTurns.com
All Rights Reserved