The Hindu Business Line : US elections: Which way will women swing?

AS THE US presidential election juggernaut rolls on and the two rivals — the Republican incumbent, Mr George W. Bush, and the Democratic contender, Mr John Kerry — trade charges on a variety of issues ranging from the Iraq war to domestic concerns on the economy, employment, and health care, the race seems to be getting that much closer.

This is perhaps the country where opinion polls matter more than anywhere else in the world, and are watched keenly. The latest USA Today/CNN/Gallop poll, published on Monday, shows Mr Kerry holding on to the advantage he had gained after his impressive performance at the first debate.

The poll, taken after the second debate on Friday, showed 49 per cent of likely voters for him versus 48 per cent for Mr Bush. After the first debate on September 30, the two rivals were tied at 49 per cent. But hardly two weeks ago, a Gallup poll, taken before the debates and between September 24 and 26, had shown Mr Bush far ahead of his rival — 52 per cent versus 44 per cent.

But as the gap between the two narrows and the D-day nears, the exchanges between the two candidates are getting sharper. While Mr Bush has called his opponent a "tax and spend liberal," Mr Kerry has gone for the jugular of his opponent, hitting him on his alleged links with the oil lobby.

Taking a shot at his opponent vis-à-vis the rising oil prices, he said in a campaign meeting in New Mexico that the record price of oil "means a lot more profit for this president's friends in the oil industry. But for most middle-class Americans, the Bush tax increase is a tax increase that they can't afford."

An Associated Press report quoted Mr Bush, also campaigning in New Mexico, ridiculing Mr Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives but they're a nuisance." Said Mr Bush: "I couldn't disagree more. Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive."

Clearly, in the entire debate, the attack on Iraq and the war against terror are focal issues and by adopting a tough and macho image, Mr Bush seeks to push across the message that he is a no-nonsense president when it comes to taking the menace of terrorism by the horn and dealing with it.

Against this aggressive stance, Mr Kerry, obviously more polished and eloquent than his opponent, as was seen in the debates, is trying to push forward his claim to the White House by saying that Mr Bush's decision to attack Iraq has only fuelled terrorist attacks against all things American, both at home and abroad.

Interestingly, the Catholic church in the US has put its weight behind Mr Bush, obviously preferring his stance against abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research — issues that it considers non-negotiable. In contrast, Mr Kerry is considered pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, etc; the very reason why the Republican camp has decided to damn him as a "liberal". An irony of sorts that a nation and a leadership that frowns on fundamentalism of the Islamic variety, embraces conservatism of home-grown variety!

In fact, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic priest in Colorado state, has gone as far to say that those voting for a liberal candidate like Mr Kerry who supports abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research would need to confess this "evil" act before a priest before receiving Communion.

So, how are the American women likely to look at all these factors and vote? Historically, in a US election more women than men tend to vote — in the 2000 election, eight million more women voted than men. In the same election, the Democratic candidate, Mr Al Gore, got 11 percentage points votes more than Mr Bush.

A recent Time magazine poll found that about 61 per cent of the undecided voters were women. And since in any election, there is a huge effort to woo the undecided voters, it is not surprising that both the protagonists are making a huge bid for women's votes.

But discomforting for the Democrats must be the indication that women are tilting towards Mr Bush for reasons as varied as "moral clarity" and the conviction that he was the kind of leader who could guard their country against further terrorist attacks of the 9/11 variety. Poll observers also think that the toning down of the arrogance and swagger, so characteristic in Mr Bush hardly a few months ago, is aimed primarily to get women's votes.

At election meetings, the US President has been wowing American women by telling them how his government had rescued Afghanistan women from the clutches of the Taliban who did not allow girls to go to school, or women to work, etc. And many American women seem to be lapping up this image of their macho President, rescuing damsels in distress in Afghanistan.

Commenting on the gender aspect of the US presidential poll, a recent article in the Christian Science Monitor observes: "Amid all the strategising and message-mongering and image-making of the 2004 campaign, all aimed at attracting various demographic groups, one stark fact has risen to the top: President Bush has made serious inroads with women voters, to the point where, in some polls, he is beating Democrat John Kerry among females. If that trend holds, Bush will almost surely win re-election... . One of Bush's not-so-secret weapons is his wife, Laura, the most popular figure on the campaign trail. Kerry's wife, Teresa, a foreign-born billionaire, is not as accessible to middle America, and is less well-known to the public, pollsters say."

But, above all, as Mr Bush doggedly sticks to his stand that despite the failure to find WMD (weapons of mass destruction) the decision to attack Iraq and overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime was the right one, many women seem to believe that their lives and homes would be safe in the hands of a "tough" President, rather than the man the Bush bandwagon has painted as "weak and wavering".

There is also a lot of debate going on at the moment on the US President's response to a question from a woman in the audience during the second debate. She asked him to list three wrong decisions he had made during his presidency; and after dillydallying for a while he could not come out with even one!

In an article in The New York Times dated October 12, Deborrah Tannen, comments: "We heard a lot about mistakes in the second presidential debate. Senator John Kerry declared that rushing to war in Iraq unilaterally without adequate plans to win the peace was a catastrophic mistake. From President Bush we heard, Mistakes? Not me. You can't lead the world if you say your country made a mistake.

"It is no surprise that the president took that position. It's one he has stuck to throughout the campaign. ... His `Mistakes? Never touch the stuff!' approach is part of the hypermasculine persona he tries to put forth, along with his stay-the-course, go-it-alone, never-waver profile."

She goes on to analyse how the refusal to admit a mistake, much less say `Sorry' for it, was a typical male characteristic that often infuriated women.

But though some women may be put off by this attitude, so characteristic of a male, the larger issues on which Americans, both men and women, will vote in this election will pertain to Iraq and its aftermath — the accelerating chaos there, the loss of lives both American and Iraqi, the alarming rate at which all that is American is being targeted across the world, and the domestic issues of healthcare, education, tax cuts and employment.

However, whoever comes to power, will the overbearing attitude of the American leadership change — that the superpower has but to snap a finger to usher in change in any country where it does not like the prevailing state of affairs? Doubtful.

Unfortunately there seems to be a deeply ingrained impression in the American psyche that they have the moral and physical right to reform the world. Us versus Them!

Response may be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in