Fun With Game Theory + John Kerry

The most glaring omission in John Kerry's acceptance speech, as the center-right coalition of the blogosphere noticed very quickly, was the lack of any mention of nation-building or democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I happen to think that a Kerry administration would do better at nation-building than the Bush administration, because 1) Democrats tend to be better at it to begin with, 2) it's almost inconceivable that any administration would do worse, and 3) Mr. Bush, mugged by reality (or at least realism) has essentially co-opted the Democratic platform of increased internationalization and accelerated troop withdrawal.

In any case, Karl Rove watched Kerry's acceptance speech as intently as anyone in the country, and there's no way that he didn't pick up on that omission. Is there a possibility that Kerry, Shrum, et al. decided not to mention these issues deliberately? While every other aspect of the speech presented a very small target for the Bushies to fire back at (Kerry's record in the Senate is another matter), this one is almost begging for an aggressive response.

This leads me to wonder, has the Kerry campaign plotted out their debate strategy in game-theoretic terms? Intentionally or not, Kerry's failure to discuss nation-building in Iraq has set up a brilliant trap, provided that Kerry has the guile to exploit it. Assuming that the response will come---and come it shall---in the presidential debates, Kerry needs to devise an effective parry/counterattack manouver (bring up the Torture Memo?). If he can do so, it will have devastating effect. Why? Because there is simply no way that George W. Bush is capable of third-order strategic thinking. Bush is at his best when thoroughly coached and on-message. Kerry has the opportunity to sucker Bush into throwing all his weight into one blow, leaving him off-balance and unprotected against a counterattack. Forget even the content of the debate or the way that the two men sound, and look at the imagery; there stands at one podium George W. Bush, eyes glazed in classic deer-in-headlights mode, stuttering his way to an incoherent response; there stands at the other podium John Kerry, looking the tall, wise, elder statesman who has just exposed a chump. Now imagine that such a moment comes early in the debate. Bush would limp through the remainder of the debate, bruised ego and all, while Kerry would have practically free reign to give another address to the nation.

As I said, I don't know if Kerry's team set the trap intentionally or not, and while it might seem unlikely, we have to remember that counterattack is Mr. Kerry's MO. By now, let's hope they've at least noticed the opportunity they've created, and are preparing to take advantage of it.

There's a corollary to this point: Kerry's famous "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." The Bush campaign is already using this in its commercials, and Bush would be a fool not to bring it up in the debates. That situation could actually be advantageous to Kerry; namely, the Kerry campaign has been so diligent in presenting a small target that they should be able to effectively anticipate every Bush line of attack; conversely, an incumbent with historically low approval ratings and policies (if not a personality) that is broadly unpopular is a huge target, and there is simply no way to predict and therefore prepare for all of Kerry's potential lines of attack. Add to that structural advantage the fact that Kerry is much better than Bush when forced to improvise, and Kerry is in a surprisingly strong position given the seeming inconsistency of his vote.

So when Bush goes on the offensive about the $87 billion, Kerry must immediately launch a counter assault that turns his vote into a positive against Bush. (Of course, he voted that way to outflank Howard Dean on the left, but Bush would be a fool to say so and Kerry would obviously not admit to it.) How can Kerry respond? With the following pincers manouver: 1) Unleash the full arsenal of administrative failures in Iraq: "I believed faulty intelligence that you provided when I cast my initial vote, then not only did the intelligence turn out wrong, but you presided over w, x, y, z, miniature catastrophes. You expected me to support further inefficiency, mismanagement, and incompetence? 2) Explain the Biden Amendment: "I originally supported a measure which would have funded the reconstruction of Iraq by rolling back the tax cuts to the top 2%. I am committed to giving our soldiers the funding that they need, and to doing so without blasting gaping holes in the federal budget. This administration, by contrast, has cut benefits to veterans...[etc., etc.], all the while maintaining those tax cuts and pushing for further tax cuts to the wealthy. This administration prefers cutting taxes on the wealthy to increased troop pay, veterans benefits, [etc.], and I intend to change that." Can't you see Bush stunned and non-responsive now?