Editor's Note: My last shot

Amid the usual absurd rhetorical flourishes about "socialists" and "kleptocracy" and the "People's Republic of Santa Monica," Review-Journal columnist Vin Suprynowicz made a couple of interesting points in his election opus published Sunday. The first was to ask, simply, why isn't John Kerry way ahead? It's a damn good question. If, as Suprynowicz notes, Kerry supposedly blew away George W. Bush in the three debates, showing the nation that he's smarter and more articulate than the president, why hasn't he enjoyed a big bump in the polls?

Suprynowicz argues, correctly, that undecided voters probably aren't going to throw their votes to Kerry "simply because he's a better public speaker." Suprynowicz also notes, correctly, that Kerry seems to be having trouble connecting on a personal level with voters. It's clear that Bush's regular joe persona--described by Vin as "inarticulate" and "simple-minded"--is more attractive to voters in that constantly moving target known as "the heartland."

So, the polls are very close. Chances are, we won't know the winner by the 11 o'clock news Tuesday night, and it's possible (though I think unlikely) that we won't know for several weeks after Election Day. That's discouraging, because the race should not be close.

If the voters were to cast ballots representing their true self-interests, Kerry would be a shoo-in. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The health care system is getting more expensive by double digits every year. American soldiers are dying daily in increasingly hostile Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet at least 49 percent of American voters think Bush has earned another term. That all may be true, these voters seem to say, but Bush is pro-life (even if he doesn't really fight to outlaw abortion). Or, the economy sucks and I lost my manufacturing job because of it and we're struggling to make ends meet, but at least Bush won't take away my gun (even though Bush supported the assault weapons ban). It doesn't make any sense, but for a variety of reasons, many people don't vote logically.

On this point Suprynowicz strongly disagrees. Suprynowicz says those heartland voters are actually very smart. They know what John Kerry is really about, and it's higher taxes, more regulation and "socialized medicine." Surely Suprynowicz is a more astute and responsible journalist than Rush Limbaugh, yet you wouldn't know it from the bombast of his Sunday essay. Suprynowicz makes sure to include all the key conservative buzz-phrases, linking Kerry with the hated French, lumping his health care reform plan in with Hillary Clinton's convoluted proposal, raising the specter (though almost never discussed during the campaign) of new controls on "self-defense weapons." None of this is particularly accurate or relevant, yet it serves the cause of convincing people to vote against their own interests.

One of the most effective smear campaigns in history has been the demonization of the word "liberal." It's not clear when this process began--probably in the early '60s--but Democrats have been fleeing from the label for a couple of decades now. All Bush has to do is call Kerry a liberal and half the country is ready to crucify the guy. And when filmmaker Michael Moore says that, yeah, Kerry is one of the nation's most liberal senators (and that's why he likes him), well, just forget about those undecided heartlanders voting for Kerry, even if they are sick of the bumbling Bush. After all, it's cool to be conservative, man.

But consider this: Consumers are getting smarter these days, right? They reject the lures of telemarketers. They study performance and safety records before buying a car or a vacuum cleaner. They check the backgrounds of doctors before making an appointment. They aim to conduct their personal business wisely. Voters should be smarter too. They should know better than to base their votes on buzzwords and narrow fringe issues.

Sadly, this doesn't seem to be happening. My experience is if you ask most people (outside of academia and the free press) whether they are liberals, they will instantly say no. But if you pose a series of basic questions designed to figure out where they stand on key issues, they will reveal themselves to hold predominantly liberal beliefs. My guess is that Kerry won the debates not only because he's a better public speaker, but because his approach to solving domestic and foreign issues is closer to that of most Americans. Nevertheless, Kerry is a "liberal," so many voters will, as Suprynowicz says, stick with the "devil they know."

My original aim with this column was to craft a common-sense, plain-language definition of what it means to be liberal, and to urge those few remaining undecided voters to look into their hearts and decide, beyond the talk radio rhetoric and campaign bluster, where they truly stand in the political world. Alas, there isn't room. But let me conclude by saying that voting is a secret act. You don't have to tell anyone who you voted for. It's not their business. When you step up to the voting machine, you can ignore the peer pressure you receive at church, at work, at family gatherings, and you can vote based on what you genuinely believe. Tell people afterward whatever you want to make your life easier, just don't lie to yourself when you cast your ballot.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER