The comedy behind the rhetorical tragedy

During Oh No 2000, Will Ferrell's bemusing portrayal of George W. Bush and Darryl Hammond's stilted Al Gore infused with an android-like cool turned an electoral fiasco into pop culture chic. "Strategery" and Al Gore's multipurpose "lock-box" became comical buzzwords during the hectic aftermath of 2000. For all the intended absurdity, these skits resonated not because they represented some over blown caricatures, but because they hit so close to home. If there is truth in wine, then there is certainly truth in the best of comedic mockery.

But this election year, such stunning displays of comedic mastery by the SNL cast seem to be lacking. It may just be because the candidates are doing their work for them.

For too long in Election 2004, both John Kerry and George W. Bush have offered pithy sound bites with no inherent meaning. For the early part of Kerry's campaign, his selling point was a "return to normalcy." Normalcy? What does that even mean? Most of all, how do we even return to this promised Xanadu? Then, during the DNC, the Kerry-Edwards campaign promised: "Help is on the way." I'm all for help, but, yet again, where's the plan?

The Bush squad hasn't been any better. Karl Rove, a mini Metternich, decided to sell Bush's greatest asset: his resolve (or stubbornness, if you prefer). Rove, then, whipped out a slogan from the Motown greatest flops record: "We've turned a corner, and we're not turning back." Carrying this theme of Gloria Gaynor perseverance, the Bush team attacked Kerry for being a "flip-flopper," having, according to one count, 11 different positions on the war. Bush, however, still has one position: follow me because I know what I know.

During this verbal gymnastics of snappy buzzwords and of sloppy policy, Kerry and Bush have become increasingly beholden to their one-dimensional campaign images: Kerry the not so visionary politician and Bush the man whose determination borders on recklessness. Call it 2000 redux. The Democrat still needs a heart and the Republican still needs a brain. The recent presidential debate, then, was an opportunity to shed this Wizard of Oz stage production and to provide texture and depth, to develop sound bites into actual policy, to draw concrete distinctions, and, most importantly, to rise above media caricaturing.

In other words, Kerry and Bush could have offered serious and competent solutions to the Iraqi conundrum. Instead, they put SNL out of business.

By the end of the debate, Kerry and Bush had merely provided sound bites for CNN – Kerry’s favorite one being how Bush “outsourced” the hunt for Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. Likewise, Bush continued to repeat his mantra of resolution and revolution to end the Iraq quagmire. When Kerry attempted to point out that Bush has still committed a “colossal error in judgment” by going to war in Iraq, Bush merely spun any criticism about his decision to go to war as an affront to American troops. He retorted:

Yes, I understand what it means to the commander in chief. And if I were to ever say, “This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,” the troops would wonder, "How can I follow this guy?"

By equating criticism of the war to insulting American troops, Bush cornered Kerry into a rhetorical box. How could Kerry critique Bush’s obviously botched handling of the war in Iraq without being deemed unpatriotic and derisive by Bush? Moreover, if Bush were every to concede any talking point on Iraq, he would lose his trademark asset: resolve.

Yet, at the same time, Kerry failed to take the upper hand by providing distinction between him and Bush. But Kerry cannot make this distinction without playing into Bush’s “flip-flop” mold. Kerry essentially agrees with Bush on nearly every major question of foreign policy, execution aside. Both Bush and Kerry recognize the necessity of staying in Iraq for the long haul, training Iraqi officers, bringing other nations to Iraq, managing the threat of nuclear proliferation, and viewing Saddam Hussein as a threat in 2002. Kerry’s foreign policy towards North Korea even seems to confuse the multi versus unilateral divide between the two candidates. Kerry made it clear that he supports bilateral talks between the US and North Korea instead of the current talks between the regional powers such as China and Japan. Kerry, then, is not promising Americans new objectives, but greater competency in the executive; and, unfortunately, competency is a hard sell for a career politician.

In the end, Bush’s unwillingness to engage in actual debate and Kerry’s inability to articulate his views muted any substantive debate. After last week’s SNL moment in Miami, the joke is really on the American people, and much to our detriment.