Bush Wins
The Ottawa Citizen | September 8, 2004 | David Warren
With the two U.S. political conventions behind us, and the traditional campaign season begun, it is now easier to predict clear victory for President Bush. Polls have nothing to do with this, one looks at the background conditions. The Democrats must campaign against wars which a majority in the U.S. believe necessary, and against the statistical and anecdotal indicators of a revived economy. Their candidate, the self-obsessed John Kerry, is almost laughably ineffectual. And at the Republican convention in New York last week, a success in both tone and ratings, George W. Bush hit his stride.
Though of course all this -- as anything -- can be changed by "events". The chief possibility, as we were reminded last week in a Russian school, would be a major domestic terror hit, for which two months remain available. But whereas such a thing might have irreparably damaged the Bush presidency, had it happened a year ago, my judgement is that it would more likely rally America behind him now.
It would do more than that: it would create an irresistible demand for more aggressive U.S. action, for a policy of bomb-now-talk-later, and for the elimination of any trace of "political correctness" in rooting up domestic subversion.
The U.S. attorney-general, John Ashcroft, has, contrary to the analyses of his media "critics", done nothing near to what democracies have always done, at home in a state of war -- suspend habeas corpus, etc. -- and he would now do "all that" with overwhelming popular support. This would be a grim day for civil liberties. But if the present measures to prevent "another 9/11" are seen to fail, it will happen -- with John Kerry cheering.
Indeed, it doesn't matter who wins in November; the immediate response to another major attack would be about the same. The difference between candidates is that Mr. Bush is more resolute when the pressure builds against him, and thus more consistent in the stretch. Mr. Kerry swims with the tide in a slick of "nuance", and is finally incomprehensible. And since the American public seem to have detected this, I don't think he can win.
Mr. Bush is the candidate for people who want America strong -- and these include many not themselves American. Mr. Kerry is for those who think the world would be better if America were weaker -- including a large constituency in the U.S. itself.
It follows that Mr. Bush is hated, passionately, not for himself alone, but because he has, by accident of history, come to symbolize everything anyone ever disliked about the USA. Given a choice even between Jihadis and Marines, they will still "blame America" for as long as possible.
As we saw on 9/11, that is only until significant numbers become truly scared. But as we have also discovered, since 9/11, it holds only as long as they stay scared, for they revert to anti-Americanism when their fear dissipates. Which creates another anomaly: that the longer the Bush administration succeeds in preventing new terrorist attacks at home, the safer people feel. They then start thinking the threat was overstated.
My impression is that the massacre at Beslan has served to remind the U.S. public of the stakes, while also opening minds to the reality of the present world crisis. Although the media have done their best to ignore this, such stray indications as the photograph of the hand of a terror victim clutching a crucifix communicate a hard truth: that the targets of the Jihadi terror are not random, but with terrible consistency Christians and, where available, Jews.
Even in Iraq, a large proportion of terror strikes have been against the country's small, mostly Assyrian, Christian minority. Likewise, in Sudan, the targets are Animists and Christians; in Indonesia, mostly Protestant Christians; in upper Egypt, Coptic Christians; in Nigeria, in Algeria, in Yemen, in the former Soviet periphery, and ultimately in America and Europe.
I believe this is a major, if mostly unacknowledged part, of what makes post-Christian people aloof in the battle: the belief that the problem is simply "religion", and that the terrorists and their victims almost deserve each other. And those who hate religion, finding Mr. Bush a Christian -- though he has carefully defined the world crisis in purely secular terms -- are the more inclined to "blame the victim".
Because it does not now appear the U.S. election will be close, one senses opponents of "Bush" already gathering their anger for the attempt to de-legitimize his coming victory. This in itself portends wild weather ahead.
The Ottawa Citizen | September 8, 2004 | David Warren
With the two U.S. political conventions behind us, and the traditional campaign season begun, it is now easier to predict clear victory for President Bush. Polls have nothing to do with this, one looks at the background conditions. The Democrats must campaign against wars which a majority in the U.S. believe necessary, and against the statistical and anecdotal indicators of a revived economy. Their candidate, the self-obsessed John Kerry, is almost laughably ineffectual. And at the Republican convention in New York last week, a success in both tone and ratings, George W. Bush hit his stride.
Though of course all this -- as anything -- can be changed by "events". The chief possibility, as we were reminded last week in a Russian school, would be a major domestic terror hit, for which two months remain available. But whereas such a thing might have irreparably damaged the Bush presidency, had it happened a year ago, my judgement is that it would more likely rally America behind him now.
It would do more than that: it would create an irresistible demand for more aggressive U.S. action, for a policy of bomb-now-talk-later, and for the elimination of any trace of "political correctness" in rooting up domestic subversion.
The U.S. attorney-general, John Ashcroft, has, contrary to the analyses of his media "critics", done nothing near to what democracies have always done, at home in a state of war -- suspend habeas corpus, etc. -- and he would now do "all that" with overwhelming popular support. This would be a grim day for civil liberties. But if the present measures to prevent "another 9/11" are seen to fail, it will happen -- with John Kerry cheering.
Indeed, it doesn't matter who wins in November; the immediate response to another major attack would be about the same. The difference between candidates is that Mr. Bush is more resolute when the pressure builds against him, and thus more consistent in the stretch. Mr. Kerry swims with the tide in a slick of "nuance", and is finally incomprehensible. And since the American public seem to have detected this, I don't think he can win.
Mr. Bush is the candidate for people who want America strong -- and these include many not themselves American. Mr. Kerry is for those who think the world would be better if America were weaker -- including a large constituency in the U.S. itself.
It follows that Mr. Bush is hated, passionately, not for himself alone, but because he has, by accident of history, come to symbolize everything anyone ever disliked about the USA. Given a choice even between Jihadis and Marines, they will still "blame America" for as long as possible.
As we saw on 9/11, that is only until significant numbers become truly scared. But as we have also discovered, since 9/11, it holds only as long as they stay scared, for they revert to anti-Americanism when their fear dissipates. Which creates another anomaly: that the longer the Bush administration succeeds in preventing new terrorist attacks at home, the safer people feel. They then start thinking the threat was overstated.
My impression is that the massacre at Beslan has served to remind the U.S. public of the stakes, while also opening minds to the reality of the present world crisis. Although the media have done their best to ignore this, such stray indications as the photograph of the hand of a terror victim clutching a crucifix communicate a hard truth: that the targets of the Jihadi terror are not random, but with terrible consistency Christians and, where available, Jews.
Even in Iraq, a large proportion of terror strikes have been against the country's small, mostly Assyrian, Christian minority. Likewise, in Sudan, the targets are Animists and Christians; in Indonesia, mostly Protestant Christians; in upper Egypt, Coptic Christians; in Nigeria, in Algeria, in Yemen, in the former Soviet periphery, and ultimately in America and Europe.
I believe this is a major, if mostly unacknowledged part, of what makes post-Christian people aloof in the battle: the belief that the problem is simply "religion", and that the terrorists and their victims almost deserve each other. And those who hate religion, finding Mr. Bush a Christian -- though he has carefully defined the world crisis in purely secular terms -- are the more inclined to "blame the victim".
Because it does not now appear the U.S. election will be close, one senses opponents of "Bush" already gathering their anger for the attempt to de-legitimize his coming victory. This in itself portends wild weather ahead.
maybe washington state will secede from the union in the next four years, so i'll retain some hope