Skip to comments.BEWARE THE ELEGANT EVIL OF JOHN KERRY
Posted on 10/20/2004 10:43:20 AM PDT by CHARLITE
Beware the Elegant Evil of John Kerry Written by Maureen Scott Wednesday, October 20, 2004
When President Bush refers to the "Evil Empire," he needs to add one more entity: The "State of Kerry." Mental state, that is. Just as we fear the irrational people who embrace terrorism, we have to fear the irrational state of Kerry's mind. The main difference between the candidates is that Bush speaks out against evil and fights our enemies in order to defend our country. In contrast, Kerry speaks out against Bush in order to advance his own image. He should take heed in the words of Will Durant, To speak ill of another is a dishonest way of praising ourselves.
Kerry has consistently hurt, insulted, twisted, skewed, blamed, called names and even targeted private citizens, staff members, former Vietnam vets, and recently our coalition partners and international dignitaries. He should pay close attention to the time-honored warning: Honi soit qui mal y pense ('Evil to him who evil thinks'). Kerry has reduced his campaign to a simple, yet nasty, contest between his Socialist beliefs and a more responsible and realistic view of the Presidency and our nations foundation as a republic. His 20-year liberal voting record against all of our military, defense and intelligence budgets proves that he has no sense of allegiance to our country.
During this campaign, he has so alienated half the country that even if he became president, he would face a nation he has tried to destroy with his attacks. When he addresses various groups, he feigns concern for the moment because his sole desire is to be liked and popular. He spews forth policy statements to satisfy and target special-interest groups, but then abandons them when he is challenged or when the polls go down! Like a high school adolescent, Kerry wants to be part of all the cliques so he demeans those not there at the moment. Clearly, he never grew up, never left those teenage uncertainties behind him. He tells the country he is looking out for us," but continually tries to widen the divide by pitting rich against poor and fomenting antagonism among ethnic and racial groups, those with differing sexual preferences, religious groups, etc. No wonder his campaigns theme is Two Americas!
Kerry has always played it safe by avoiding controversy and challenges i.e. his do nothing senatorial record, and his early leave from action in Vietnam. He has rarely stood independently strong; he prefers to stand in the middle. He is afraid of making unpopular decisions, even when they are necessary. As a candidate he has been unable to elaborate on his so-called "plans." He is not a leader. He is a follower.
Kerry has presented only glimpses of some of his ideas, but he always couches or prefaces them with derision of President Bush. He has never uttered an idea of his own without making a comparison that was based on half-truths or campaign spin about the presidents policies. Evidently he ignored his mothers deathbed words to him: Integrity, integrity, integrity.
The most apparent trait Kerry has developed is his well-hewed skill for pointing fingers and finding fault. Does he really think intelligent people will have faith in him just because he says he can "do better" without even being sure what he will do? It is obvious he is not really sure what he will do.
Surely, Kerrys need to discredit President Bush is founded in his own uncertainties. Like the schoolyard bully with the loud mouth, he takes action only to put others down. He reminds us of the kid no one really liked, but whom we were cautious to oppose because he could callously hurt our feelings by using cutting criticisms. Or the inept boss who never really understood the company but was prepared to blame everyone else for problems that he, himself, failed to resolve.
Psychologists might say it appears he is unstable, has low self-esteem, and is even pathetic in his need to be liked. He hides his insecurity by an outward display of knowledge, a feigned understanding, and staged performances in a field that feeds the needs of his ego. I doubt that he entered politics because he was driven by a desire to do good for others. More likely, his career was molded around his desire to be recognized, seem important, and to emulate the Kennedy image that he has sought so hard to evoke. In the process, he never developed any semblance of authenticity.
Even his heroic Vietnam experience is suspect. It seems that, in his heart of hearts, Kerry made the decision to go to Vietnam after college because he (1) was denied a draft deferment and couldnt imagine serving as an enlisted member, and (2) chose the better of two inevitable options to serve as an officer. That suited his career objectives and the imitation of a Kennedy standard that punctuated all his goals. He had no deep desire to defend his country and inside he knows that. His stint in the military was a ploy for future use and reference. When in battle and faced with the reality of war, he very quickly found a way to get out. He did not stay and fight the fight, like so many thousands of others did who had received far more serious wounds. He abandoned his fellow soldiers and ran back to the comfort and relief of home shores and clean sheets. As a decorated soldier he felt he had the credibility to speak out to an audience even an enemy audience. Today he cynically touts the medals he threw away.
As a senator, Kerry continued his tradition of ineffective leadership by opting for the non-combative sidelines. He is the type of character who chooses only to curse the weather rather than fight the storm. He hides in the safe shelters of non-activity until all the dust has settled and then criticizes the actions of others.
Now, however, he cannot hide. His true persona and record have been exposed. His emotionless, mechanical albeit temporarily effective debating skills are just lines from a well-rehearsed skit that momentarily conceal his inner lack of strength and character. In a debate, Kerry covers his insecurities by being "robotic and memorizing facts well so as to appear secure in his stance. He would do well to remember the words of John F. Kennedy If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no value.
With an entourage of drama coaches, Hollywood make-up artists, plastic surgeons, and non-cohesive advisors, Kerry creates a new Kerry every day. More than a flip-flopper, we see Kerry as the "Play-dough" candidate. Take him out of the can, shape him one way or another, make him look pretty, plug in some words from today's advisor, and put him out there. Then put him back into the can to reshape him tomorrow. He cannot stand long because, in actuality, he only has feet of clay. There is no real heart, no soul that guides him.
Adding Kerry to the Evil Empire is logical in this sense: Evil empires take their roots in misguided, self-serving and evil leadership. Lets remember Saddam: well groomed, clean-shaven, immaculately dressed, obsessed with his appearance, smiling widely, speaking convincingly, feigning empathy for his own people, living lavishly, and conveying a sociopaths crafty intelligence, absence of genuine feelings and immense sadism.
His only vulnerability, it seemed, was his deep insecurity. Thus he was ready to destroy anyone who opposed him particularly if they had intellectual or ideological differences. He demoralized the citizenry until they were dependent on earning his "good will." They acquiesced and chose to appear supportively grateful to the government. Saddams people could not jeopardize themselves by arousing his anger.
Kerry seeks to make people dependent on the government, as opposed to relying on their own capabilities. When people are told they are part of some unfortunate group that has to be helped, they give up, they loose desire to advance, be creative or inventive. It becomes easier to just accept and be thankful. Therefore, they never advance. Fear keeps people dependent; fear gives the leaders control. Inside Saddam there was a seething, rotting, insecure person who ruled by frightening others. He was the epitome of a Pandoras box. In a psychological comparison, is Kerry much different?
I think it is time for a professional analysis of political candidates personalities. In the corporate world, psychological tests are often the norm for positions of authority. During campaigns we consider all other aspects of the people we want to lead us, so why not a psychological evaluation of their mental makeup as well? We are not just dependent on their actions; we are also dependent on what psychological motives direct their actions.
Look into Kerry. What is showing is a very uncertain, self-indulgent, belligerent, Machiavellian man beneath that well-packaged, glamorized facade. To paraphrase an old adage..."We looked for the evil...and the evil was within."
Or maybe George Washington, in his farewell address in 1796, said it best in warning against the likes of a candidate like Kerry: Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
About the Writer: Maureen formerly ran a writing service for professionals and was a fundraiser for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. She and her retired-serviceman husband live in Virginia. She also volunteers for the American Red Cross. Maureen receives e-mail at email@example.com.
Sadaam and Kerry are physchologically equals ...
I apologize. That was unfair to Cindy.
Nice work Charlite.
Here is what we have to say about the Senator:
I think those two characteristics are not combined by coincidence in people like Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, etc. - they go together like two sides of a coin.
Kerry says he "can do." Big deal. Anyone "can" do. Bush has shown he "Will Do" "Has Done." Big difference.
Elegant Evil - I get it, as in the Perfect Evil. Or in mathematical/scientific terms, as in the Elegant Equation. Perfect.
Good idea psychological tests. Would they submit is the other thought?
As to the article it is EloQuent.