Posted on 11/07/2004 7:02:03 AM PST by GaryL
Just days after George Bush won what can only be described as a resounding victory in the US elections, the reaction in much of Britain and Europe remains one of astonishment. How, they demand, could America have re-elected the war-mongering, half-witted toxic Texan? Is the country as dumb as its leader? Has America finally been taken over by God-fearing hillbillies bent on meeting jihad with crusade? Or perhaps Americans, many of whom believe they have been abducted by aliens, really are from another planet. The truth, of course, is that the bien pensants have spectacularly missed the point. Mr Bush won not because the Bible belters, with their homophobic, anti-abortion and creationist views, wanted to take America back to being an isolationist and socially illiberal country. He won because more Americans trusted him — even liked him — than they did John Kerry, the aloof liberal from out-of-touch Boston. This was a vote for old-fashioned Victorian values, a belief in patriotism, the family, church and public service. It was not a hard-nosed, red-neck philosophy, as its detractors portray it, but more a yearning for some of the certainties of the 1950s with fewer of the destructive social penalties that blighted that time. It was, without Mr Bush saying it, a vote for compassionate conservatism. And we should not forget that Mr Bush won convincingly at a time when the economy is softening and there is a mismanaged and unpopular war going on in Iraq. He also began to make inroads into key constituencies, such as the rapidly growing Hispanics and Asian Americans, which the Democrats had taken for granted.
Some 22% said that “moral values” were the most important reason why they had voted, but this does not imply a return to the puritanism of the Pilgrim Fathers. When Americans voted against gay marriage, as they did in polls in 11 states, it was not because they were anti-gay. They were voting to preserve traditional marriage and against something regarded even by many gays as a step too far. Mr Bush backs civil unions for gays, hardly the stance of a homophobe. Nor does the party wish to get rid of abortion; it wants to end the so-called partial-birth abortions in which healthy foetuses can be killed late in a pregnancy. That could equally be described as the mark of a civilised society, not one stuck in the Dark Ages.
The Democrats must learn the lessons of this defeat and not retreat into incredulity. The outcome showed that it was the Democrats who were out of synch with the country, and by wilfully misreading the results they will merely compound their errors. Now they have to find a way back, much as the Labour party did after its trouncing by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. They will have to select a candidate and policies that will appeal to this conservative yet largely tolerant middle ground. It will not be easy; many of those middle American values are anathema to East and West Coast liberals. Mr Bush, too, will be careful not to be pushed too far to the right. Karl Rove, his political strategist, based his campaign on William McKinley’s Republican triumph as long ago as 1896. This was won against the odds by uniting aspirational immigrant and blue-collar voters. That victory (ironically, against a Christian fundamentalist) ushered in three decades of largely Republican dominance.
Mr Bush now needs to address pressing domestic issues, such as tax reform and controlling public spending, but for the rest of the world it is his foreign policy that matters. The priority remains Iraq and he must pursue the war there with greater vigour. One of the mistakes of the democracies in the second world war was to proceed too cautiously at the end, prolonging suffering and increasing casualties. Mr Bush should send more troops and bring the insurgency to a swift end. That way Iraq can hope for relatively secure elections, ensuring that it takes an important step towards embedding freedom and democracy in the heart of the Middle East. If that precious flower is allowed to blossom, the increasingly disturbing death toll will have served a worthy purpose.
"Mr Bush backs civil unions for gays, hardly the stance of a homophobe. Nor does the party wish to get rid of abortion; it wants to end the so-called partial-birth abortions in which healthy foetuses can be killed late in a pregnancy. That could equally be described as the mark of a civilised society, not one stuck in the Dark Ages."
Wouldn't you know it - one of the best anaylses of the election comes from overseas!
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the election was probably won in the final debate when both candidates were asked their opinion aabout partial birth abortion. Kerry gave some long-winded nuanced response full of the usual liberal hemming-and-hawing on an issue that most normal Americans find morally repugnant.
When it was Bush's turn, he said: "Partial-birth abortion? I'm against it."
Game over!
"Is the country as dumb as its leader? Has America finally been taken over by God-fearing hillbillies bent on meeting jihad with crusade?"
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Give me the big stick of Teddy Roosevelt over the appeasement stategy of Neville Chamberlain any day when fighting terrorism.
This editorial is worth reading in its entirety. And from the 'London Times'....no less. A rag, Obviously far superior to the 'NY Times'.
That was a well written and thought provoking article..thanks for the post
Hello?? What's this?? Obviously the work of a New York Slimes reader...
The _Times_ seems to be sending a not so subtle message-- well, it's doing all but screaming-- to the Tories to learn from Bush's success. I think it's fair to say Bush is against more than partial birth abortion, for example, but the _Times_ is suggesting to the Tories something *they* might adopt in Britain. Similarly with the rest of it. Bush has captured the imagination of _Times_ editors. They're trying to urge the Tory leadership into a platform based on "Victorian" values, public service, and strength abroad.
I don't understand British politics quite well enough to comment with accuracy. But isn't Euro-skepticism a winning issue for the Conservatives, perhaps in combination with the above? Is it really just inconceivable that the Tories could get themselves back into power before 2050?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.