"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election), and we want to educate them. There weren't told the truth." [Calgary Sun, Nov. 13, 2004]
This is not a quote from some dangerous "right-wing" nutbar, nor does it come from the writings of some radical Islamic cleric. You can't find it on the pages of an old issue of Pravda, and neither did Fidel Castro's propoganda machine spew this out for public dissemination. These are, infact, the words of Michigan's own Michael Moore, a purported filmmaker-come-propogandist, whose "Fahrenheit 9/11" became the darling of the Liberal/Hollywood set that was determined to see President George W. Bush defeated in the November presidential election.
Moore failed, and miserably so. Despite this, he has promised a sequel to Fahrenheit, tentatively dubbed "Fahrenheit 9/11 and 1/2" for release prior to the next presidential election in 2008.
"The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining--George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again," he is quoted as saying in the same article. Apparently, Mr. Moore has learned absolutely nothing from the results of this past election and, in what can only be described as a fit of pique, has fired the first broadside in his self-declared war on American democracy.
This, however, is not as surprising as some might believe. Liberals have often been at pains to dress themselves in the garb of "champions of the downtrodden" and "supporters of the oppressed." The problem is that no matter how they adorn themselves, they cannot hide the fact that, to most people, they represent the very effete-elite of wealthy, comfortable, high-living, baboons they (claim) to be campaigning against. As a result, they lack the necessary credibility to make their case as being "for the people" because they, themselves, are clearly not of them.
John Kerry is a perfect example of this. This rich playboy Vietnmam"war hero" (who apparently brought along his own film crew to record his exploits) had/has about as much in common with the "common" people as mice have in common with cats. Although undoubtedly a sincere politician, and perhaps a very honorable one, he was burdened with not only a mouthy rich wife, Theresa, but the billions that her status brought with her. That, along with the support of multi-millionare Hollywood actors and actresses, further tainted (and then isolated) Mr. Kerry from the very constituency he was trying to reach: the average American. In other words, any credibility he had built up in the bank of popular support from among the "common folk" was lost or drowned out by the voices of both his liberal, rich supporters and the sight of their multi-million dollar homes and cars.
President Bush, on the other hand, didn't have that problem. Although endorsed by actor Ron Silver and several other middle-weights in Hollywood (including the tacit support of Governor Schwarzeneggar of California), he never appeared either totally comfortable in their midsts or was one of them. In fact, Hollywood's almost total disapproval of him was perhaps the single greatest "act" of goodwill and political boomeranism there has ever been done.
By virtually isolating President Bush, Hollywood showed that it was, itself, out of the poltical mainstream. And although Mr. Moore had no problem parading around the USA as the local town's beerhall drunk, instead of one of Tinstletown's most talented producer/directors, the sulphurous nature and short-sightedness of his vision (ie. Fahrenheit 9/11) only proved to the American public what it long suspected: that Democrats and Liberals care only for their own agendas, not theirs.
This is a far cry from the "New Deal" Democrats that won five presidential elections under FDR and Harry S. Trueman beginning in 1932. Back then it was the Republicans that appeared to represent the elite corporate interests, and those who wished only to exploit the USA for their own self-centered gains. But a strange thing happened between 1952 and 2004, people began to see that there was a difference between the rubber and the road; that what the Democrats were interested in was not the needs of "the common people" but their own wooly notions of what society should and must be.
This tear in the political fabric caused a new and strange juxtapositioning in the body politic, most siginficantly in the American South. This region, the only part of the continental United States to ever experience military defeat and occupation, switched from its traditional support of the Democrats to the Republicans, a trend which has stayed, mostly solid, since the 1960's. That's because the Democrats, instead of pursuing a gradual approach to social and economic change, turned radical...and then turned ridiculous.
Instead of offering a "New Deal" the Democrats kept offering the old one, warmed over and re-cooked. Instead of appealing to the new reality and desire of the American public for less taxes, less government, and a strong but technoligically-advanced military, the policies espoused by the Liberal-left became more and more intereventionist. Thus Universal Health Care, the mantra of all politicians north of the 49th, although a good "idea," struck more and more people as being a further example of the kind of socialist-minded, interventionist state that they had come to dread.
Supported and backed by the liberal-educated elite that was only beginning to flex its political and economic muscle in the 1960's-1980's, the American public became very suspicious of their motives. Then, in the 1990's, world-wide Communism collapsed and the ideology that was once seen as intellectual utopia of those very same elites, dealt a fatal blow to their credibility and reconfirmed the Right's view that military strength, tied to Conservative values and a desire for true liberty, was the correct path all along.
This is a blow from which the Democrats have been staggering ever since. Although President Clinton, via the intervention of Ross Perot, may have won election in 1992 and 1996, it was signicant in that both the House and Senate remained Republican. It was, in effect, the Americans saying to the Democrats, "we trust you...but only so far." Yet President Clinton, for all his shenanigans, both in and out of official White House duties, only further proved what many mainstream Americans had come to suspsect of their political left; that Democrats and Liberals, from Clinton to Kerry to Moore, were, in essence, a bunch of well-paid, rich, hypocrites.
This remains the key problem for Democrats and Liberals now. If President Bush comes from a wealthy and well-connected Texas family, Kerry also comes from a wealthy and well-connected New England family. How then can the Left say to the Right "you're the elitist" when multi-millionare actors, actresses, producers and directors, who clearly don't share the same conservative values that most Americans hold too, and probably don't have any problems getting health care and the essentials of life, line up behind Kerry and say that they are really for the "common people?"
They might believe it, even as they scoot past the average "Joe" driving his Chevy, while they listen to music in the half-million dollar BMW's on the LA freeways enroute to some well-vetted "charity" event to help the poor in the Third World. But the same average "Joe" doesn't because he's still in the slow lane paying a good portion of his income in order to fill his rusty old Chevy with $2.00/gallon gas in order to get to work. And while helping the Third World may be an important issue to some, it strikes most as convenient because these same wealthy people, who are so eager to help the "poor," are neither willing to live as modestly as the ones whose support they cherish, nor associate with them to the same degree as President George W. Bush did when he wrapped arms around that fire fighter following 9/11.
It is this "common touch" that truly defines the issue of the last two Presidential elections, along with the last three Congressional ones. The Democrats might say that President Bush is really all about "money" and "power" but his actions and determination reveal him to be a man of the people. Although wealthy himself, his quirky "aww shucks" personality, his down home conservative beliefs, and the air of approachability he possesses gives him an accessibility to the public that most Democrats, with their feined self-importance, simply lack. In otherwords, the very thing that the Michael Moore's of this world despise is what makes President Bush, and other Republicans, so appealing.
By being rejected by Hollywood, the unions, and other bastions of Left-wing hype, President Bush is seen as being outside the circle of elites that purportedly knew what was best for everyone. By embracing those same elites, Kerry, though he managed to convey his message far louder and far wider than any Democrat before him, instead, further alienated himself from the mainstream American voter he wanted to appeal too.
This is the antithesis of what, in my article, "The 2002 Congressional Election/synopsis," I called "The Bush Effect" whereby a sitting president can transform the National Agenda into the local agenda by simply expounding what is "practical and conservative;" allowing his message resonate in the ears of Americans because that is what most Americans are truly believe. The flip-side of this is the "Hollywood Effect" whereby a group of elites can enlist the support of other elites to spread the message that they are not really elites at all but common folk with common values shares by all Americans. But most Americans are not fooled by this fabrication and quietly resent it, thereby isolating themselves from the foolishness of Hollywood in the same manner Hollywood did its best to isolate itself from the President.
Who, then, is the true "elites"? Who, then, is the real champion of the common people? According to Mr. Moore those "elites" are found in the "fifty-one percent of the American people" who "lacked information" and made the terrible decision of voting for President Bush, while presumably the champions of the common people were those forty-nine percent who voted for Kerry. And now he's made it his mission to "educate" those miscreant Republicans who he believes "weren't told the truth," and arouse the spirit of Hollywood and the America in the great cause of electing to Congress and the White House an "educated" Democratic choice.
Such, it seems, is the world of Democrats and Liberals. Like they are in Canada, they are the same in the US. Presuming to be for the common people, they are really for themselves. Claiming to represent mainstream values, they really represent their own self-interests. Claiming to fight against the elites, they reveal only that they are elitist themselves. And while that contradiction may have been lost on the Michael Moore's of this world, I doubt it has been lost on the American public at large. At least, I hope not.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Bush Cannot Retreat
Here's a news-flash to all those pundits who were opposed to the re-election of the President of the United States of America: George W. Bush is not the dope you guys thought (or hoped) he was.
Of course, that does not stop many writers from putting a negative spin on his victory, calling it "narrow" even though it was the largest popular vote win in modern American history; even more so than 'Hill-billy' Clinton's victory in 1996.
Frankly, I think that says more about the personal political views of those pundits rather than about how objective history will judge what President Bush did or did not do. What everyone must agree on, however, is that Mr. Bush is DEFINITELY the man of the hour and has an opportunity to consolidate the gains made by the Conservative "bible belt Christians" (like me) who have thoroughly backed him.
That, however, doesn't mean backing out of Afghanistan or Iraq, as some believe or hope (his selection of Condi Rice as the new Secretary of State should disabuse people of that vain and dangerous notion). Quite the contrary. A backing away now would be tantamount to a betrayal, and result in a net loss of the 'political capital' he worked so hard to earn.
Moreover, it is simply not possible. As history demonstrates, unless a wise ruler such as Turkey's Kemal Atatürk can be found, Moslem-dominated countries are seldom capable of establishing the kinds of democracies beneficial to their own people, and ours. The words of the Koran (hardly a liberal document), in fact, preclude it. And since there is no 'liberty' within it, no 'liberty' can be harvested from it.
Normally, that wouldn't be a problem for most of us in the Western world. If Moslems want to butcher and torture Moslems, that's their issue. But when they fly airplanes into buildings and then try to blame the 'Jews,' or some 'radical sect' that is "not representative of Islam," people out here laugh...and then start loading bombs onto airplanes.
That's the reason not only for the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also the First Gulf War. To a certain extent, these conflicts are also an offshoot of the several (losing) wars these supposedly 'peaceful' Arab regimes have had with Israel ever since its founding in 1948. Until such a time, however, as a new Atatürk arises in the Middle East (or even a noble savage like Saladin) that will allow Islam to be practiced peacefully, and individually, in these Moslem-dominated countries, I fear (and believe) the West is headed for perpetual war with them.
Frankly, if we could avoid importing a single drop of their damned oil, I think the West would be better off. Although we have friends in such countries as my (now late) aunt's Kuwait (she died two years ago), Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, and the UAE, without our cash they'd wither away back to the quiet insignificance they had for a 1,500 years under Islam-imposed rule.
To be honest, I'd like nothing better, except, of course, for the damage such a policy may cause to our true Arab friends, who have always stood by the West. It's also simply not economically possible right now, and won't be until new sources of energy are developed independent of oil. Either that or the vile Arab/Moslem regimes that continually support and incubate terrorism in their own lands are overthrown by those who support genuine freedom and liberty everywhere.
The trouble is (as I stated earlier) I just don't think genuine freedom and liberty is possible within Islam; short of the coming of some Saladin or Atatürk to 'impose' it from above. If I am proven wrong on this point, however, I'll be very grateful. Until then, if ever, I predict there will have to be constant intervention by the West in the affairs of Middle East Arab/Moslem states; for our own good if not theirs.
Eric Margolis, in a column entitled "Yankees are blind to blundering Bush" (Oct. 17, 2004, Calgary Sun) said, "As for Bush's vow to wage unceasing war on America's enemies around the globe, (former TV host and presidential candidate Pat Buchanan) quotes President James Madison: 'Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.'"
Frankly, I think that says more about the personal political views of those pundits rather than about how objective history will judge what President Bush did or did not do. What everyone must agree on, however, is that Mr. Bush is DEFINITELY the man of the hour and has an opportunity to consolidate the gains made by the Conservative "bible belt Christians" (like me) who have thoroughly backed him.
That, however, doesn't mean backing out of Afghanistan or Iraq, as some believe or hope (his selection of Condi Rice as the new Secretary of State should disabuse people of that vain and dangerous notion). Quite the contrary. A backing away now would be tantamount to a betrayal, and result in a net loss of the 'political capital' he worked so hard to earn.
Moreover, it is simply not possible. As history demonstrates, unless a wise ruler such as Turkey's Kemal Atatürk can be found, Moslem-dominated countries are seldom capable of establishing the kinds of democracies beneficial to their own people, and ours. The words of the Koran (hardly a liberal document), in fact, preclude it. And since there is no 'liberty' within it, no 'liberty' can be harvested from it.
Normally, that wouldn't be a problem for most of us in the Western world. If Moslems want to butcher and torture Moslems, that's their issue. But when they fly airplanes into buildings and then try to blame the 'Jews,' or some 'radical sect' that is "not representative of Islam," people out here laugh...and then start loading bombs onto airplanes.
That's the reason not only for the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also the First Gulf War. To a certain extent, these conflicts are also an offshoot of the several (losing) wars these supposedly 'peaceful' Arab regimes have had with Israel ever since its founding in 1948. Until such a time, however, as a new Atatürk arises in the Middle East (or even a noble savage like Saladin) that will allow Islam to be practiced peacefully, and individually, in these Moslem-dominated countries, I fear (and believe) the West is headed for perpetual war with them.
Frankly, if we could avoid importing a single drop of their damned oil, I think the West would be better off. Although we have friends in such countries as my (now late) aunt's Kuwait (she died two years ago), Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, and the UAE, without our cash they'd wither away back to the quiet insignificance they had for a 1,500 years under Islam-imposed rule.
To be honest, I'd like nothing better, except, of course, for the damage such a policy may cause to our true Arab friends, who have always stood by the West. It's also simply not economically possible right now, and won't be until new sources of energy are developed independent of oil. Either that or the vile Arab/Moslem regimes that continually support and incubate terrorism in their own lands are overthrown by those who support genuine freedom and liberty everywhere.
The trouble is (as I stated earlier) I just don't think genuine freedom and liberty is possible within Islam; short of the coming of some Saladin or Atatürk to 'impose' it from above. If I am proven wrong on this point, however, I'll be very grateful. Until then, if ever, I predict there will have to be constant intervention by the West in the affairs of Middle East Arab/Moslem states; for our own good if not theirs.
Eric Margolis, in a column entitled "Yankees are blind to blundering Bush" (Oct. 17, 2004, Calgary Sun) said, "As for Bush's vow to wage unceasing war on America's enemies around the globe, (former TV host and presidential candidate Pat Buchanan) quotes President James Madison: 'Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.'"
Buchanan, a classical Conservative if there ever was one, however, along with Madison, was wrong. While Madison may have said those words, he's also the same president who declared war on Great Britain and invaded Canada; America's first foreign-soil 'defeat' (it was a 'tie,' actually, but I'm Canadian you know, eh). In the Civil War both the Confederate States and the United States held elections for president and for congress. In W.W.I, W.W.II, Korea, Vietnam, and now the War(s) on Terror and Iraq, freedom has been preserved and strengthened and elections were continually held. That's not simply because the US is an exceptional nation but because Americans genuinely believe in these things.
President Bush has that same belief. And now, after a bitter political campaign, four years of being called an 'idiot' or 'dangerous,' he has the political clout and the moral power to see through to the end those actions and policies that he has so nobly, and tirelessly, persued. I, both as a Christian, a Conservative, and a relative of New Yorkers, look forward, eagerly, to what he will do next.
As for bin Laden and terrorists everywhere (including the goons running Iran's nuclear program), they'd better look to their calendars and say their prayers to the 'god' they think will protect them. In the first place because their time is running out, and in the second because that 'god' has demonstrated, at least so far, that he is either unwilling to intervene on their behalf, or not real enough to actually do so.
Sincerely,
President Bush has that same belief. And now, after a bitter political campaign, four years of being called an 'idiot' or 'dangerous,' he has the political clout and the moral power to see through to the end those actions and policies that he has so nobly, and tirelessly, persued. I, both as a Christian, a Conservative, and a relative of New Yorkers, look forward, eagerly, to what he will do next.
As for bin Laden and terrorists everywhere (including the goons running Iran's nuclear program), they'd better look to their calendars and say their prayers to the 'god' they think will protect them. In the first place because their time is running out, and in the second because that 'god' has demonstrated, at least so far, that he is either unwilling to intervene on their behalf, or not real enough to actually do so.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Arafat, Legacy of Evil
Calling Yasser Arafat a "hero" after his death is like calling "satan" an advocate for liberty. Although I would like to believe he had some redeeming qualities (even Hitler liked babies), the Chairman of the PLO hardly stands up to the standards set by such truly noble people as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Jesus Christ, Ghandi, FDR, Lafayette, Thomas Jefferson, Cincinattus, Martin Luther King Jr., or even the legendary Saladin.
These truly great men were "great" because they appealed to our better natures and elevated mankind by showing us that we can be better people. They were heroes because they represented what is good and best in all of us, and gave us honorable examples of decency and compassion to follow.
Arafat failed on all those levels. Although hailed as the symbol of the so-called "Palestinian people" he was little more than a calculating thug and a brigand. Instead of peaceful resistance, or even resistance marked by attacks on what would (and could) be considered legitimate "military targets," his tactics were based on hatred and marked by encouraging little children to become human bombs in order to murder innocent men, women, and babies.
Although, in the twisted logic of some, such attacks may have served to heighten interest and support for the "cause" he espoused, Arafat was really was little more than an agent of evil. Largley because of him and the tactics he choose to emply, Mohammedism is now a despised religion and even its most peaceful and decent practitioners considered potential threats to national security.
That is the legacy of a short-sighted policy of a short-sighted man, and represents his greatest failure. Had he the courage to peacefully resist and promote the cause he thought valid, the so-called "Palestinians" (who only existed as a 'people' after the 1967 Six Day War) may well have found a homeland by now. Their majority-faith would not now be the subject of suspicion, and their actions today could have been hailed, instead, as being truly demonstrative of the best in humanity.
Tragically, they don't. Whether because of the attacks against innocent civilians, numerous airplane hijackings, or the events of 9/11, a large part of the murderous evils perpetrated in the name of "Palestine" and "Islam" can be tied (and rightfully so) to the man justifiably called the "godfather of terror."
A truly great man and hero, however, would have found another and more noble way. That, unfortunately for the cause he espoused, was something Arafat could never be. Now, after his death, after all the murders charged to his guilty soul, I pray that genuine peace and understanding flourish in the Middle East and throughout the world.
IF it can't, Yasser Arafat will have won his greatest, and most base, battle. The hatred, violence, and misunderstanding that is his REAL LEGACY, therefore, will go on until, in God's good time, He chooses to raise up a man truly great in spirit, great in vision, and great in love. Arafat, however, was not that man and only a foolish, uniformed, and desperately wicked person would think otherwise.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
SEE VIDEO: http://www.honestreporting.com/arafat
SEE ALSO: http://www.pmw.org.il
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
The Bush Effect, Part II
President George W. Bush didn't simply win the 2004 US General Election because his opponent was an unattractive, untelegenic, and flip-flopping candidate. The President of the United States won because he embodies what no Democrat is willing or even capable of being; the personification of the average, "ugly" American.
Even though both Mr. Bush and John Kerry, his opponent, come from the same Patrician class that has bred almost every President except Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant (a personal hero of mine, along with General Robert E. Lee, Lincoln, and even Jefferson Davis), Mr. Bush never appeared to really belong there.
That's what differentiates Mr. Bush from Mr. Kerry and is the thing that most people, especially the leftist Hollywood elite, cannot (or would not) understand. When the President speaks, he speaks the language of the common person, unrefined, a bit awkward, crude at times, but very, very down to earth. It's also what makes him so appealing to his countrymen.
Despite Mr. Bush's pedigree, he truly represents the quintessential "ugly American," something that many Americans actually take great pride in. Like actor Bill Murray said in the movie, Stripes, George W. Bush hails from the very people who were "kicked out over every decent country in the world." Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, seems to hail from an alien race that has somehow been engrafted into American life; and though he may pretend to belong to the mainstream public, his words and actions reveal, all to plainly, that he really isn't one of them.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is. While he would bomb a country into the Stone Age to kill a fly that dared to fly into the hair of the most insignifcant American, Mr. Kerry, instead, would try to negotiate with the fly and find ways to come to terms with it. While the President comes accross as a strong, forceful and menacing presence to some, Mr. Kerry strikes people as weak and vacillating; a wooden Howdy-Doody on rocking horse. Moreover, the Democratic nominee also appeared artificial, like many liberals do, spouting high-minded ideas and half-truths instead of staying focussed on issues that were truly important to those people whose support he sought.
Mr. Bush, however, never had that problem. While he might not have understand the subtleties of macroeconomic policy, or the ecological need to save some species of wild elk, one did get the feeling that if he could give himself a tax cut, he'd do what most Americans would; spend it on beer, a new car, or take the family out for pizza. What he wouldn't do is waste it on some high-minded baloney like "wind power" or social programs that benefit only a few, but whose primary purpose was to make people, like Mr. Kerry, more appealling to the left-wing intellectuals who like to think they know better than the average American.
This is the secret behind the President's appeal. It is, as I said in an earlier article, the Bush Effect brought down to the average guy, and the average guy buys into it because it is not very far from where he or she is. If Americans see their presidents not so much as political leaders as they do modern-day cavaliers, rushing to the rescue of the oppressed and the enslaved, it is because that's how they see themselves too. And whereas Canadians may "pride" themselves on being "tolerant" and open-minded (the "nice guys" of the western world), Americans pride themselves on being John Wayne, rushing to rescue damsels in distress.
Mr. Kerry, however, doesn't fit that bill. He's too slick, too liberal, and too elite, even among an elite group. Because of this, Americans saw this man, with his elongated features and botox injections, his rich wife and high-brow bearing, as somehow less "American" (and, by extension, less patriotic) than they do the genuine article. Despite his genuine warmth and obvious concern for everyones well-being, not to mention his intellectual credentials, Mr. Kerry lacked the common touch and that mysterious quality that enables other people, like his opponent, to connect with their own constituency in ways he could only dream of.
President Bush, on the other hand, does and can. Although he may not appear to be the brightest bulb on the tree, he does come across as being genuinely genuine. Sure, he might shoot first and ask questions later but then that's what Americans expect from the leader of their country. He's also from Texas, the land of cowboys, and when he rides a horse or chops wood, he's not pretending to be anything other than what some people say he is; "the hick from the sticks," predigree and all.
Ironically, that's the thing that makes him so appealing and what many people, among them the leftist idealists and the niave, fail to give him credit for. It's also why Mr. Kerry failed and why Mr. Bush was re-elected. Oblivious to how hollow their promises and high-minded baloney rings in the ears of the average "ugly" American (the ones whose taxes have to pay for those promises) the Democrats have apparently learned nothing from either the events of 9/11 or the congressional elections in 2002.
Because of that lack of understanding, or some stubborn belief in their own propoganda, they have paid a huge price, losing not only the presidency, but even more seats in the House and Senate. Determined to promote and push through an agenda completely out of touch with the common people, promising to bring substance to nebulous "high minded ideals" that no one can relate too, and then running as if these were representative of the "real" America, the Democrats, like left-wingers everywhere, tripped over the reality gap and faced-planted into the pool of irrelevancy. Now, it seems, they have done one better; sinking even further into the bottomless pit of electoral oblivion which their high-brow, left-wing, Michael Moore-inspired rhetoric have dug for them.
As a Canadian, I don't think we have anything to fear from Mr. Bush; in fact, I think we have something to learn. And that is that while we, up hear, love to say "we're not Americans" our friends to the south, especially after this election, are equally adamant that they are not "like y'all either."
Sincerely,
I. M. Ulysses
Even though both Mr. Bush and John Kerry, his opponent, come from the same Patrician class that has bred almost every President except Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant (a personal hero of mine, along with General Robert E. Lee, Lincoln, and even Jefferson Davis), Mr. Bush never appeared to really belong there.
That's what differentiates Mr. Bush from Mr. Kerry and is the thing that most people, especially the leftist Hollywood elite, cannot (or would not) understand. When the President speaks, he speaks the language of the common person, unrefined, a bit awkward, crude at times, but very, very down to earth. It's also what makes him so appealing to his countrymen.
Despite Mr. Bush's pedigree, he truly represents the quintessential "ugly American," something that many Americans actually take great pride in. Like actor Bill Murray said in the movie, Stripes, George W. Bush hails from the very people who were "kicked out over every decent country in the world." Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, seems to hail from an alien race that has somehow been engrafted into American life; and though he may pretend to belong to the mainstream public, his words and actions reveal, all to plainly, that he really isn't one of them.
Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is. While he would bomb a country into the Stone Age to kill a fly that dared to fly into the hair of the most insignifcant American, Mr. Kerry, instead, would try to negotiate with the fly and find ways to come to terms with it. While the President comes accross as a strong, forceful and menacing presence to some, Mr. Kerry strikes people as weak and vacillating; a wooden Howdy-Doody on rocking horse. Moreover, the Democratic nominee also appeared artificial, like many liberals do, spouting high-minded ideas and half-truths instead of staying focussed on issues that were truly important to those people whose support he sought.
Mr. Bush, however, never had that problem. While he might not have understand the subtleties of macroeconomic policy, or the ecological need to save some species of wild elk, one did get the feeling that if he could give himself a tax cut, he'd do what most Americans would; spend it on beer, a new car, or take the family out for pizza. What he wouldn't do is waste it on some high-minded baloney like "wind power" or social programs that benefit only a few, but whose primary purpose was to make people, like Mr. Kerry, more appealling to the left-wing intellectuals who like to think they know better than the average American.
This is the secret behind the President's appeal. It is, as I said in an earlier article, the Bush Effect brought down to the average guy, and the average guy buys into it because it is not very far from where he or she is. If Americans see their presidents not so much as political leaders as they do modern-day cavaliers, rushing to the rescue of the oppressed and the enslaved, it is because that's how they see themselves too. And whereas Canadians may "pride" themselves on being "tolerant" and open-minded (the "nice guys" of the western world), Americans pride themselves on being John Wayne, rushing to rescue damsels in distress.
Mr. Kerry, however, doesn't fit that bill. He's too slick, too liberal, and too elite, even among an elite group. Because of this, Americans saw this man, with his elongated features and botox injections, his rich wife and high-brow bearing, as somehow less "American" (and, by extension, less patriotic) than they do the genuine article. Despite his genuine warmth and obvious concern for everyones well-being, not to mention his intellectual credentials, Mr. Kerry lacked the common touch and that mysterious quality that enables other people, like his opponent, to connect with their own constituency in ways he could only dream of.
President Bush, on the other hand, does and can. Although he may not appear to be the brightest bulb on the tree, he does come across as being genuinely genuine. Sure, he might shoot first and ask questions later but then that's what Americans expect from the leader of their country. He's also from Texas, the land of cowboys, and when he rides a horse or chops wood, he's not pretending to be anything other than what some people say he is; "the hick from the sticks," predigree and all.
Ironically, that's the thing that makes him so appealing and what many people, among them the leftist idealists and the niave, fail to give him credit for. It's also why Mr. Kerry failed and why Mr. Bush was re-elected. Oblivious to how hollow their promises and high-minded baloney rings in the ears of the average "ugly" American (the ones whose taxes have to pay for those promises) the Democrats have apparently learned nothing from either the events of 9/11 or the congressional elections in 2002.
Because of that lack of understanding, or some stubborn belief in their own propoganda, they have paid a huge price, losing not only the presidency, but even more seats in the House and Senate. Determined to promote and push through an agenda completely out of touch with the common people, promising to bring substance to nebulous "high minded ideals" that no one can relate too, and then running as if these were representative of the "real" America, the Democrats, like left-wingers everywhere, tripped over the reality gap and faced-planted into the pool of irrelevancy. Now, it seems, they have done one better; sinking even further into the bottomless pit of electoral oblivion which their high-brow, left-wing, Michael Moore-inspired rhetoric have dug for them.
As a Canadian, I don't think we have anything to fear from Mr. Bush; in fact, I think we have something to learn. And that is that while we, up hear, love to say "we're not Americans" our friends to the south, especially after this election, are equally adamant that they are not "like y'all either."
Sincerely,
I. M. Ulysses
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
9/11 and President Bush's Victory in 2004
Article sent to MacLeans Magazine in Canada, dated Feb. 11, 2004
The comments made in the article "Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh" (Maclean’s, Feb. 9, 2004 edition) smacks of the same left-wing tripe that seems so common amongst the effete elite of Toronto’s Liberal establishment, and Ottawa’s cocktail club Socialist intelligentsia.
This magazine, which "acknowledge(s) the financial support of the Government of Canada, through the Publications Assistance Program (PAP)…" has often come across to me as Canada’s own Soviet-era Pravda, and parrots, very effectively, the same kind of banal garbage put forward by Liberal MP Caroyln Parrish, although much more tactfully.
Despite the thinly disguised propaganda, come November the new "JFK" (John F. Kerry) will lose resoundly to President George W. Bush and it won't be because "only 15 per cent (of Canadians)…would definitely cast a ballot for Bush if they had the opportunity." It will be because the end of the Cold War, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have changed the old political rules forever, something which, apparently, hasn’t quite sunk-in for many people yet.
In his book, "The Shield of Achilles," Philip Bobbitt says of the post-Cold War era: "The problem for the United States has become to identify it’s interests and future threats so that it can use it’s power to strengthen the world order that is has fought, successfully, to achieve..." World wide terrorism, the threat posed by rogue nations (like the formerly Saddam-run Iraq), and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, are some of those "future threats." And while we in Canada may feel a sense of superiority to our friends farther south, we cannot glibly dismiss the actions of their president simply because the more jingoistic left-wingers among us simply see him as a "moron" with a conservative agenda.
The sad truth is that the events of 9/11, along with the other happenings following the end of the Cold War, radically changed the American political landscape. Under former US President Bill Clinton, the US and the world virtually slept through the bulk of the 1990’s while people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein plotted and schemed against our allies, and us. Then one sunny day in New York City in 2001, some Moslem fanatics took over a few aeroplanes and brutally murdered a bunch of innocent people, live and in colour. This sudden jolt reawakened a slumbering giant and energising a complacent (and inward-looking) American public, not unlike the attacks on Pearl Harbour did two generations ago.
That event brought home the sad, brutal truth there are people in this world who have, and always will, hate America, hate Canada, hate the West, and hate the liberty and prosperity that 2,000 years of state-craft have given us. It has also presented us with the choice of either quietly giving in to them, through the surrender our national existence via the route of accommodation and "appeasement" (a la Munich, 1938). Or the decision, like President Bush has, to hunt them down and bring justice to them through swift and decisive military action wherever they may be found or suspected; whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the far ends of the Earth.
We might not like this "new dawn" of American power, we might even hate the US president who brought it about. But in the unpredictable and dangerous era we’ve entered into since the end of the Cold War and 9/11, I believe its exercise is as critical for the future security, prosperity, and liberty of the United States, as it is for all free nations, including ours.
The only question for us, as Canadians, then, is not whether we like or dislike George W. Bush, but whether we are willing to stand by and let him and the Americans do the fighting for us, or join them in battling the common enemy we all face. But in order to make this decision we must stop listening to the propaganda of cocktail-club Socialists and the Liberal intelligentsia and accept the new political reality that the end of the Cold War, and the events of 9/11, has forced our friends to the south to confront.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
I.M. Ulysses
George W. Bush and the Legitimacy of the State in the Post 9/11 World
It’s time for the President of the United States, George W. Bush, to quit apologising for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein. Too often, in this farcical joke that has passed for an election campaign, the Democrats have been virtually accusing the President, and his Cabinet (among whom are some of the leading lights and best hopes of America and the free world), of being little more than a war-mongering "cabal" intent on destroying the Middle East and exploiting its resources for their own fiendish ends.
Well I, for one, am quite sick of it. It’s time for Mr. Bush and his Administration to stop cowering from these Moore-ish (and boorish) attacks on his integrity and stand up for the truth.
The simple fact is that Mr. Bush was RIGHT to invade Iraq. The reason is simple and quite easy to understand, even for Liberals and Democrats, when looked at from the right perspective. For example, if a known "thug" holds what appears a "gun" at my family or me, I react swiftly and decisively, based on the information that seems valid to me at the time. What I would not do is first create a "commission of inquiry," or ask knowledgeable people, including the police, if I have a legitimate, legal, and moral right to act against the perceived threat in such a way that I immobilise it; even if it results in the potential threat’s destruction.
That, however, is exactly Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry’s way. According to his own admission (depending on which "admission" you wish to believe), he would have the United States to wait until the last possible second, blindly hoping that Hussein would quietly, and meekly, submit to the UN; all the while evidence piled up higher than the wall they hung Haman on, that he not only had "weapons of mass destruction," but was also willing to use them.History is a harsh master, and an even tougher tutor, but anyone who studies it cannot but come away with the lesson that tyrants only respect force. Our fathers and grandfathers learned that he hard way in Munich, which effectively raped Czechoslovakia and brought about the catastrophe of the Second World War.
Thankfully, they learned their lesson within a generation and, as a result, were able to contain the Soviet Union until it finally imploded in 1991. But then came the 9/11, a date that forever changed the world, and it became apparent that the zeal of our forefathers was forgotten by their children in the relative peace and stability that their blood and sacrifice made possible.
At that moment the idea of "co-operative security" that the United Nations did so much to foster in the previous 50 years, proved to be a chimera. Among nations, with rational political policies (even ones diametrically opposed and hostile to the West, among them the Communist Bloc and other totalitarian regimes), the UN "worked." Why? Because all sides agreed to abide by its principles and accepted the consequences (which that association imposed) when one of its members was threatened. But since the end of the Cold War a new dynamic appeared, one that neither respected the UN, nor could accept it’s founding principles; Islamic Terrorism and the attendant rogue states which then, and now, support it.
These particular "elements" worked outside the boundaries of recognised state legitimacy, sowing anarchy either through surrogate armies of Jihadis, or by funding their activities. Among them such states at Iran, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, and Afghanistan, not to mention erstwhile "allies" such as Saudi Arabia, whose rampant Wahhabism influenced Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. Yet while this threat gathered, the United States, indeed, the world, slept, and waited, relying, too often, on the "goodwill" of the very states in whose bosom these unlawful elements found sanctuary.
When 9/11 came, however, it was Munich and Pearl Harbour all over again, but on a scale far beyond the scope the UN was designed to deal with. Having thus set the terms of engagement outside the boundaries and controls of the state-system that the 20th Century lived by, it became obvious that the only way to fight rogue states and terrorists was to also go beyond those same boundaries.
That is the foundation of the Bush Doctrine following 9/11 and why war with Iraq became not only a political but also a military necessity. The only problem was that, in this case, despite the best efforts of the American Intelligence network, the information was, ultimately, incorrect.
In this case the "thug" was carrying only a water pistol, not a Colt .45 (even though he tried to make it appear he had a real weapon). He was still a "thug," though, and the world is, indeed, better off with him in chains than in a position where he could possibly acquire real weapons. The question that intrigues me, however, is why people are so intent on punishing the man who locked him up, instead of being grateful that there is, at last, someone who is no longer willing to sit back and wait for a sworn enemy’s next blow to fall.
In this case, President George W. Bush, despite Michael Moores’ propaganda film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," was doing only what any rational person would do. He reacted against a threat that he believed, quite sincerely, to be real, gathering, and imminent. That is not the actions of a fool, a crazy man, or a person trying to "steal" the resources of a foreign country, but of rational human being reacting to the information given him. Unlike former President Clinton, under whose watch the Al-Qaeda threat was allowed to materialise and build a nest in the chaos of Afghanistan, however, this president was not willing to sit still and wait for another generation to rise up and deal with it.
The events of 9/11 showed that this was no longer a worthwhile option. Rogue states, and their terrorist surrogates, were clearly not willing to be subject to the proscriptions and rational behaviour that characterise civilised states and nations, and the bodies they voluntarily adhere too, such as the UN. If and when they do, however, as several rogue Arab states have done, it is only to disguise their desire to undermine the legitimacy of other states (such as Israel), or because they hope use such organisations as forums to rail against the very system that "contains" their own political ambitions.
Hence the question of to attack or not to attack Iraq really became a question of the legitimacy of the UN and the international system itself; a system whose rules Hussein had already violated once and most likely would have again. Ironically, it required action outside the UN, the guardian of state legitimacy since the end of W.W.II, to uphold that system because a majority of the states within it couldn’t grasp the threat to them posed by the rogue Iraqi regime and terrorism.
Mr. Kerry, in fact, still doesn’t grasp this. Despite his years of congressional service and actual combat experience, this "war hero" of a war he later denounced, would rather wait until a potential threat became a "real threat" and manifest itself is such a way that it would legitimise the actions he would then take. Yet "threats" by their very nature, are not "tangibles," they are intangibles and when they manifest themselves the only action left to a president, or any world leader, is re-action, something 9/11, Pearl Harbour, and the invasion of Poland in 1939 made the world all too aware of.
But for Mr. Kerry, however, it is not enough for a known "thug" to make his appearance at his door, nor would he be willing to commit to any course of action as long as the "thug" says he is willing to abide by certain unwritten rules of engagement. Thus, despite the fact that all the information indicates imminent danger, Mr. Kerry would not draw his own gun in self-defence, fearing that if he is ultimately proven wrong, he would face legal and political consequences which he is constitutionally (as a person) unwilling or incapable of accepting. He would, as the popular Republican slogan says, be mentally "flip-flopping," continually testing, in his mind, the limits of his own legitimacy to take action, instead of actually taking action because he lacks the understanding that the "thug" he is confronting is not bound by the same ethical rules he is.
President Bush, however, clearly doesn’t have that dilemma. Unlike the highly cerebral Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bush recognised that 9/11 changed the rules of engagement forever. Just as Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo destroyed the Versailles Settlement in the 1930’s by their withdrawal from the League of Nations and support of Fascist regimes in Europe, so have the actions of rogue states like Iran, Libya, Syria, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (along with their terrorist surrogates) destroyed the post-Cold War settlement in present times. Although these states have, from time to time, ostensibly used the UN and "state sovereignty" in their legitimately constructed forms for, arguably, legitimate and reasonable purposes, history has shown that when such states have done so, it is only as a pretext to weaken the system, not build it up. Were they to do otherwise, not only would it undermine the legitimacy of their own decrepit regimes but it would also damage their political aspirations.
In the similar way, when a known "thug" often finds himself before a magistrate he will claim he was an "innocent victim" because the guy he wanted to rob or murder, instead shot and wounded him first. He knows his actions are worthy of punishment but in the courtroom where his fate is to be decided, he pleads that the real "injury" he suffered, at the hands of his intended victim, makes him innocent of the crime he intended to commit.
This is the same "claim" Mr. Kerry and the Democrats now put forth in their attacks against the President. To them, Mr. Bush is "guilty" because he took down a "thug" based on the fact that the evidence presented at the time (evidence which even Mr. Kerry felt was compelling) turned out to be incorrect. This does not, however, make a legitimate case because, in reality, it is the finding of guilt ex-post-facto; or the discovery of fault due to a lack of clear 20/20 hindsight.
Mr. Kerry, however, would have the American public believe that, had he been president, he would have somehow known the true facts about Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction all along and chosen not to invade. Just how he would have been found capable of that feat while in the White House, without being likewise enlightened while in the Senate (when he was convinced otherwise), he has not been able to explain.
This, however, is Mr. Kerry’s central contradiction and explains much of his flip-flopping on issues. It is also a disturbing quality for a would-be leader in an age where his legitimacy also reflects on the legitimacy of his nation and the subsequent actions they feel at liberty to take.
By the same token, however, had the "thug" in question truly been carrying a weapon, President Bush’s actions against him would then have been found to be a legitimate response, and the UN would have lost any remaining pretence to its claim of legitimacy as the guardian of world order. In this case, it is also entirely conceivable that, has a person like Mr. Kerry been in charge, he would have been incapable of any action at all. Paralysed by the crises of legitimacy he faced when confronted with evidence that appears incontrovertible, but unsure if the facts were absolutely correct, the Democratic nominee would have been incapable of acting until the report of the "thug’s" gun entered his ear, as the bullet (God forbid) slammed into his body.
By then of course, it would have been too late to do anything at all; the crises of legitimacy would have been resolved for good and, instead of being a "war hero," Mr. Kerry would be on the floor dying or dead (God forbid). Any action that followed from that point, however, whether by the "police" or the UN, would have resulted in yet another crises of legitimacy as each agency would first be required to get enough evidence to legitimise whatever action(s) it would then feel compelled to take. Then, to maintain that legitimacy, those actions would have to be measured against the prescribed standards that the legitimising powers granted it. In other words, any action(s) taken would have to be subject to the scrutiny of some of the very powers whose agents are the perpetrators of the crime that was committed.
The "thug, " of course, like the rogue state or the terrorist organisation, doesn’t have that problem. His/their existence is defined by the actions they take outside the law, or a legitimising institution such as the UN, allowing them/it to set the rules of engagement while, at the same time, restricting the actions of those who seek legitimacy within it.
That is the paradox John Kerry has not been able to resolve, or even show people that he is even remotely capable of doing it. Instead, he drifts from point to point, seeking validation for is views which, by necessity, must remain fluid. Unlike President Bush, who ended the debate on Iraq the same way Alexander the Great ended the Persian Empire by cutting the Gordian knot (with a sword), Mr. Kerry remains convinced he could have undone it and kept the damn string.
This can only stem from the certitude the Democratic nominee has in his own wisdom (a trait he criticises President Bush for also having), or a desire to go down in history as "The Great Un-Knotter"; although that would hardly be an impressive epitaph for a career in public service. Yet it also serves to highlight the central difference between the two contenders for the highest office in the United States.
While Mr. Kerry seeks legitimacy for his actions through a careful and thorough examination of the facts, President Bush relies on the self-evidence of the facts themselves. If Mr. Bush sees what looks like a gun or a weapon in the hands of his opponent, he doesn’t feel compelled to deconstruct it to ensure there is cause for alarm; the character of the person holding the alleged weapon is cause enough. Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, apparently finds incredible intellectual satisfaction in breaking down, to the utmost detail possible, the fact that the alleged weapon is in fact a gun, and that the person does in fact to use it against him.
To some, the President’s approach may seem a bit "gung-ho," especially for those who, like Mr. Kerry, have actually experienced the horrors of combat and fear the political/legal fallout should post-bellum evidence prove otherwise, as has been the demonstrated case in Iraq. The Kerry approach, however, also tends to be more vacillating (flip-flopping) and, in my opinion, much more dangerous because it refuses to recognise an obvious threat until that "threat" has manifested itself in the form of some great a catastrophe.
9/11 was one such a great catastrophe. Rooted in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and manifest in the bombing of the USS Cole and the American embassies in Africa under President Bill Clinton, Al-Qaeda was not taken seriously until too late. Yet this event served to put the world on notice that the age of the rogue state and organised, state-sponsored global terrorism had begun.
These countries and organisations are defined as such because they seek legitimacy outside of the institutions recognised by the community of civilised states, or within them, but only for the purpose of undermining these organisations for their own political goals (the PLO being one exception, a terrorist group seeking legitimacy as a state and then trying to carve one out from land occupied by a legitimate state, Israel). In the same way that a "thug" is defined as someone acting outside the law while perpetrating a crime until they are caught, rogue states, likewise, then seek global legitimacy when they are wounded or attacked after their hostile intentions become clear (i.e. Taliban-ruled Afghanistan).
When President Bush attacked Iraq, therefore, he was not attacking the legitimacy of the UN, but of a state that he believed had been operating outside it, and building weapons it had prohibited from having. Ironically, in order to protect the structure of state legitimacy, he committed the United States to fight a war by going outside that very same structure. Why? Because it become obvious to him that the members within it had begun to de-legitimise that organisation from within by their inaction.
He was wrong but only in retrospect. Yet, based on the evidence presented him, I am convinced the President took the only proper and ethical course open to him in the world born after 9/11, in order to protect the United States and the West.
Mr. Kerry, however, could not do such a thing because he is intellectually incapable of working outside the comfortable and reassuring confines of legitimacy provided by other states and the UN. And precisely because he is not capable, he cannot, therefore, succeed against those states and the terrorist organisations that find and achieve legitimacy outside of the community of civilised states he champions. Constantly in search of validation and support, vacillating from one position to the next, and always worried about the consequences of being wrong, Mr. Kerry would compromise the effective security of the United States and the Western world.
President George Bush, however, would not. He might be "wrong," ex post facto, but I doubt, very much, that any known "thug" would be willing to come through his front door knowing he was not only waiting there with a loaded gun, but was also willing to use it.
That’s why I support him and why I think that his decision to invade Iraq was right. History may judge otherwise but, if 9/11 is any indication, it has also been known to repeat itself....despite the best and most sincere efforts of us all.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
The 2002 Congressional Election/synopsis
I orignally wrote this as a newspaper column after the 2002 US Congressional election. I think it still has value in light of the presidential election in 2004.
Nov. 13, 2002
The results of the November (2002) US Congressional election can be laid at the feet of a political phenomenon called "The Bush-Effect." This is where a sitting, popular president, can take his national agenda and turn it into a local issue embraced by all.
Some might have called it the "9/11 Backwash Election" or the "War with Iraq Referendum" but the immensity of the results clearly indicate that it went well beyond that. In fact what we may have born witness too was the embryonic beginnings of a genuine National Conservative Consensus in American politics; something that would be welcome in Canada, if only the Tories and the Canadian Alliance would unite.
Because of the fickle nature of US mid-term elections some might think this was merely a slight shift in the political breeze. But, when you consider that even among Democrats it was those who, by-and-large, supported Bush that got elected, the results have a much more profound meaning.
Gone, it looks like (at least nationally), are the days when being politically "central" is the safe bet. Now to get elected a decidedly Right-wing tilt is needed. Part of it, definitely, is due to 9/11 but the other part has to do with the fact that, in an era of both economic, political, and social uncertainty, a strong, tough vision is needed; even one which some may disagree with. Since the Democratic Party is really just a circus with a one-trick pony (ie. Bill Clinton), when that one left there was little point to the rest of the show.
As a party, the Democrats biggest weakness is that they are party of factions (the laughable "Rainbow Coalition" being just one zany part), just like the Liberals and NDP are in Canada. Although some people still like to glibly point out the tired old adage of "strength in diversity" the practical person intuitively KNOWS how patently illogical such a claim is. Why? Because to make "strength in diversity" work you ALWAYS need a charismatic leader and lots of gullible people who want to buy into it. If you don't then the centrifugal forces within such a polity will invariably tear it apart.
Only a truly charismatic person can keep all various Liberal and Democratic animals under the same big-top tent because they are so in awe of him that they forget their own natural incompatibilities and enmity. Without him, however, the more "conservative" animals naturally drift towards their Republican brethren (ie. the so-called "Reagan Democrats") while the Liberal/Democratic ones drift towards the Clinton/Gore crowd. The problem, however, is that Clinton is gone, Gore is laughable (still), and the Enron, Worldcom, the Tech Meltdown, and even 9/11, which all had their roots in Bill Clinton's presidency, have shown just how foolish and nebulous the goals of the Liberal Left really are.
On November 5th, when faced now with a choice between "ideals" and "practicality," the American public chose practicality and moved back towards the Conservative Right. By doing so they chose, in effect, to vote for unity and not faction, and expressed faith in a common vision rather than a multi-layered and nebulous ideal, even if it scared them a bit. Gone, it seems, are the days when the electorate was content to divide between "black issues", and "white issues" (as I'm sure future elections will show), or between "minority concerns" versus "non-minority concerns." Under the Bush-Effect, the rules have changed and it is values that are the real "issues" now, not the need to find common ground among divergent "factions."
In the long run that spells doom for the Democrats, and Left-wing parties in Canada. Unable rally support amongst various divergent and dissimilar groups of electors, the party of FDR and John F. Kennedy is now in danger of losing their legitimacy for existing altogether, much like the NDP and Liberal parties up here.
The main reason for this is that, like other parties that have come and gone, Democrats and Liberals NEED factions to survive since they, apparently, lack any supportable values or even a coherent national vision. But they also need supportable candidates too, not aging hippies, who can keep those factions together. Without that "glue" they drift into irrelevancy because they will (and do) lack a genuine consensus or a truly national agenda.
This may explain why there are a fair number of governorships still in Democratic hands. As a party of factions it is quite natural that they would win locally since they are more able to tailor their messages to smaller groups of people, without those people worrying about any possible impact on overall NATIONAL policy. Yet even here the winds of change were blowing, as seen by a number of new (and some say surprising) victories by Republicans. This means that the line between national and local issues has blurred and, where the real triumph of the Bush-Effect lies.
In less than a year, the much maligned, tough-talking, big-stick-wielding President has become a bit of a folk-hero. He makes Americans feel secure, he tells them good days are coming and he doesn't mince words. In short, President Bush demonstrated that he IS one of the people. Clinton, on the other hand, "acted" like one of them, while Gore "pretends" to be one of them, but the US public instinctively knew they really weren't, nor the party they represent.
Bush, however, both politically, emotionally, and perhaps even temperamentally, definitely IS one of them. That's why they responded the way they did to his conservative, practical, straight-forward message; much more so, apparently, than the "high-minded" ideals espoused by the liberal establishment. It’s also what allows him to so easily bridge the gap between national politics and local politics and draws people of all shades and stripes to him.
It was this identification with the President that transformed the National Agenda into the local agenda. It is the Bush Doctrine brought down to the average American, and the average American bought into it because deep down they knew that the alternative is factionalism, and acceptance of something other than their shared conservative values.
The Democrats, like the Liberals and NDP in Canada (and elsewhere) however, were not been able to grasp this. Trying, instead, to appeal to groups of people and some nebulous, "high-minded" ideals, instead of core values and practicality, they trip over the reality gap and face-plant into the pool of irrelevancy. Unable to form a consensus amongst themselves on what should be their strengths, such as "health care" and "education" (which the Republicans have smartly appropriated), they are left without a national agenda or even a local vision. All they have, then, are the tired old sayings of a bye-gone era and wishful thinking for the next.
Bush, and the Republicans, however, did not make that mistake. Practical and conservative, their message and values resonated much better because they truly represent what America is all about. Because of that, they didn't so much have to "sell" something "new" as to remind the public of what they already have, and really are themselves. It's also what makes the Bush Effect so powerful and demonstrates, as this election did, how a national agenda can be transformed into a local issue, which most people can then embrace.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
see also: http://georgewbushandthestate.blogspot.com/
Nov. 13, 2002
The results of the November (2002) US Congressional election can be laid at the feet of a political phenomenon called "The Bush-Effect." This is where a sitting, popular president, can take his national agenda and turn it into a local issue embraced by all.
Some might have called it the "9/11 Backwash Election" or the "War with Iraq Referendum" but the immensity of the results clearly indicate that it went well beyond that. In fact what we may have born witness too was the embryonic beginnings of a genuine National Conservative Consensus in American politics; something that would be welcome in Canada, if only the Tories and the Canadian Alliance would unite.
Because of the fickle nature of US mid-term elections some might think this was merely a slight shift in the political breeze. But, when you consider that even among Democrats it was those who, by-and-large, supported Bush that got elected, the results have a much more profound meaning.
Gone, it looks like (at least nationally), are the days when being politically "central" is the safe bet. Now to get elected a decidedly Right-wing tilt is needed. Part of it, definitely, is due to 9/11 but the other part has to do with the fact that, in an era of both economic, political, and social uncertainty, a strong, tough vision is needed; even one which some may disagree with. Since the Democratic Party is really just a circus with a one-trick pony (ie. Bill Clinton), when that one left there was little point to the rest of the show.
As a party, the Democrats biggest weakness is that they are party of factions (the laughable "Rainbow Coalition" being just one zany part), just like the Liberals and NDP are in Canada. Although some people still like to glibly point out the tired old adage of "strength in diversity" the practical person intuitively KNOWS how patently illogical such a claim is. Why? Because to make "strength in diversity" work you ALWAYS need a charismatic leader and lots of gullible people who want to buy into it. If you don't then the centrifugal forces within such a polity will invariably tear it apart.
Only a truly charismatic person can keep all various Liberal and Democratic animals under the same big-top tent because they are so in awe of him that they forget their own natural incompatibilities and enmity. Without him, however, the more "conservative" animals naturally drift towards their Republican brethren (ie. the so-called "Reagan Democrats") while the Liberal/Democratic ones drift towards the Clinton/Gore crowd. The problem, however, is that Clinton is gone, Gore is laughable (still), and the Enron, Worldcom, the Tech Meltdown, and even 9/11, which all had their roots in Bill Clinton's presidency, have shown just how foolish and nebulous the goals of the Liberal Left really are.
On November 5th, when faced now with a choice between "ideals" and "practicality," the American public chose practicality and moved back towards the Conservative Right. By doing so they chose, in effect, to vote for unity and not faction, and expressed faith in a common vision rather than a multi-layered and nebulous ideal, even if it scared them a bit. Gone, it seems, are the days when the electorate was content to divide between "black issues", and "white issues" (as I'm sure future elections will show), or between "minority concerns" versus "non-minority concerns." Under the Bush-Effect, the rules have changed and it is values that are the real "issues" now, not the need to find common ground among divergent "factions."
In the long run that spells doom for the Democrats, and Left-wing parties in Canada. Unable rally support amongst various divergent and dissimilar groups of electors, the party of FDR and John F. Kennedy is now in danger of losing their legitimacy for existing altogether, much like the NDP and Liberal parties up here.
The main reason for this is that, like other parties that have come and gone, Democrats and Liberals NEED factions to survive since they, apparently, lack any supportable values or even a coherent national vision. But they also need supportable candidates too, not aging hippies, who can keep those factions together. Without that "glue" they drift into irrelevancy because they will (and do) lack a genuine consensus or a truly national agenda.
This may explain why there are a fair number of governorships still in Democratic hands. As a party of factions it is quite natural that they would win locally since they are more able to tailor their messages to smaller groups of people, without those people worrying about any possible impact on overall NATIONAL policy. Yet even here the winds of change were blowing, as seen by a number of new (and some say surprising) victories by Republicans. This means that the line between national and local issues has blurred and, where the real triumph of the Bush-Effect lies.
In less than a year, the much maligned, tough-talking, big-stick-wielding President has become a bit of a folk-hero. He makes Americans feel secure, he tells them good days are coming and he doesn't mince words. In short, President Bush demonstrated that he IS one of the people. Clinton, on the other hand, "acted" like one of them, while Gore "pretends" to be one of them, but the US public instinctively knew they really weren't, nor the party they represent.
Bush, however, both politically, emotionally, and perhaps even temperamentally, definitely IS one of them. That's why they responded the way they did to his conservative, practical, straight-forward message; much more so, apparently, than the "high-minded" ideals espoused by the liberal establishment. It’s also what allows him to so easily bridge the gap between national politics and local politics and draws people of all shades and stripes to him.
It was this identification with the President that transformed the National Agenda into the local agenda. It is the Bush Doctrine brought down to the average American, and the average American bought into it because deep down they knew that the alternative is factionalism, and acceptance of something other than their shared conservative values.
The Democrats, like the Liberals and NDP in Canada (and elsewhere) however, were not been able to grasp this. Trying, instead, to appeal to groups of people and some nebulous, "high-minded" ideals, instead of core values and practicality, they trip over the reality gap and face-plant into the pool of irrelevancy. Unable to form a consensus amongst themselves on what should be their strengths, such as "health care" and "education" (which the Republicans have smartly appropriated), they are left without a national agenda or even a local vision. All they have, then, are the tired old sayings of a bye-gone era and wishful thinking for the next.
Bush, and the Republicans, however, did not make that mistake. Practical and conservative, their message and values resonated much better because they truly represent what America is all about. Because of that, they didn't so much have to "sell" something "new" as to remind the public of what they already have, and really are themselves. It's also what makes the Bush Effect so powerful and demonstrates, as this election did, how a national agenda can be transformed into a local issue, which most people can then embrace.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
see also: http://georgewbushandthestate.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
