Posted on 11/04/2004 12:01:51 AM PST by snowsislander
In the end, it wasn't even close. George W Bush won a decisive endorsement from the American people for the most radical presidency of modern times. It was a vindication of his own idiosyncratic kind of conservatism: folksy, evangelical, optimistic, unapologetic and, when necessary, martial. The triumph of this Churchillian conservatism will delight the President's friends and confound his critics, but it will also strike fear into all enemies of America and the West.
For those enemies understand very well what the re-election of Mr Bush really signifies. Following hard on the heels of John Howard's triumph in Australia, it demonstrates that the leaders of the war on terror, at least in the English-speaking nations, have enough support to persevere in their task, and that our democracies are sufficiently robust to withstand attempts by the terrorists to influence elections. The President would have won even without Osama bin Laden's sinister re-emergence in the last week of the campaign, but it is heartening to know that the margin of victory was almost certainly widened by al-Qa'eda's intervention. Americans voted in record numbers to return to the White House a president who had been more reviled, at home and abroad, than ever before. They have demonstrated once and for all that no power on Earth can intimidate a free nation. This now takes its place among those truths which Americans hold to be self-evident.
Not the least impressive aspect of the Bush victory was its unambiguous rejection of the argument that carried so much weight on this side of the Atlantic: that only a new president would be able to heal the wounds left by the liberation of Iraq. Mr Bush has now been given the tools to finish the job of helping the Iraqi people to create the first genuine democracy in the Arab world.
He obtained his mandate without making irresponsible promises to withdraw US troops by a certain date or to hand over the burden to others, such as the UN, without the means to protect this fragile plant. Afghanistan's first free election has established a precedent that Iraq, with Britain's help, can hope to follow. Slowly but surely the tide may be turning in Iraq, as the jihadis holed up in Fallujah will soon discover.
The result has brought those in Europe who dreamt of a Kerry victory down to earth. It ought to be a wake-up call for those European states - above all Germany and France -which have held aloof not only from the liberation, but also from the reconstruction of Iraq. There is no point in hoping that the French and Germans will change their minds about Mr Bush, or vice versa, but self-interest dictates that both sides should draw a line under the past.
European leaders should not wait till next January to embrace the new, democratic Iraq. Mr Bush, for his part, is also likely to adopt a more conciliatory style in his second term - aware that his Administration's public diplomacy has hitherto been its Achilles' heel. The President will want to banish the unjust accusation of unilateralism, but, as the leader of the free world, he needs to retain the flexibility to act speedily and decisively. Pre-emptive military force is a last resort, but a necessary one.
This raises the two issues that are likely to test the Atlantic partnership over the next year: Iran and Israel. Teheran's imminent acquisition of a nuclear capability and its role in the Iraqi insurgency make Iran the most urgent item in Mr Bush's in-tray. He cannot ignore this threat, but neither can he afford another Iraq on a bigger scale. Britain, France and Germany have tried and failed to appease Iran. Regime change is the only long-term solution, but Mr Bush is likely to rely on backing the internal opposition, rather than military options, to help bring this about.
Europeans should not repeat the mistake they made over Iraq, supporting the insupportable and then crying foul when America kicked away the last props. This time, Europe itself could provide the model for regime change: in Iran, the ayatollahs are as unpopular as the communists were in eastern Europe before 1989. Mr Bush should follow Reagan's example, appealing to the Iranians over the heads of their leaders. If he does, Europe should back him.
On Israel, there is a widespread expectation (voiced yesterday in the Commons) that the President will now bully Ariel Sharon into giving the Palestinians what they have failed to extort by terrorism. That is not what Mr Bush believes, nor what he was elected to do. But he is uniquely placed to reassure the Israeli public that a withdrawal from Gaza, and ultimately most of the West Bank, could make Israel and Palestine more rather than less secure. If Mr Bush can broker a two-state solution that even Mr Sharon can live with, then there is a chance that it might happen - especially if Yasser Arafat is no longer able to sabotage it.
What does the second Bush term mean for the United States? The economy is in urgent need of rather more attention than the President has been able to give it since September 11, 2001. The ballooning budget deficit requires cuts in public spending; Arnold Schwarzenegger has shown what can be done in California. Tax cuts are still the unique selling point of Bush's brand of politics, but priority should now go to the taxpayers of middle America rather than the corporate interests of Wall Street. During his first term, "compassionate conservatism" was just a slogan; now Mr Bush can make it happen.
This was not merely a vote for the status quo, but for an idealistic vision of America as the land of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Terrorism threatens all three, and the electorate chose the candidate whom it judged to be the best guardian of that patriotic archetype. Americans do not expect their president to run their lives for them, but to let them pursue their own, infinitely various, ways of life. Yet they knew exactly what Mr Bush stands for. His opposition to same-sex marriages, for example, was endorsed by constitutional amendments in 11 states.
His attitude to embryonic stem cell research and abortion was equally clear. Second-term presidents are often less radical, and it may be that Mr Bush will appoint less abrasive colleagues in order to ameliorate America's image abroad. But the country he leads is diverging from Europe: it is younger, more self-confident, more prosperous, more devout, more diligent, more democratic and, in short, more conservative. Europe must come to terms, not only with Mr Bush, but with the nation that has elected him. This is a president who really can speak for America.
Bush is not radical. Someone should explain that to them. In this country John Kerry is the radical.
Amen.
Even UK conservatives just don't get what's going on over here.
Radicalism works on both ends of the spectrum.
but Bush is a moderate conservative
My Conservatism exactly.
Guess I am indeed a flag waving, Neocon, Bushbot moron. [chiding wink goes out to ALL of the disavowed Freepers zombying around LP...and continuing to loiter here.]
I thought you were pretty socially conservative. You do realize that neo-cons are not, right?
Well, hello there.
Does it suck knowing we did not need you? Hahaha...
Hi!
Does it suck knowing we did not need you?
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to New Jersey?
Haha...you know precisely what I am talking about.
I'm dead serious. I don't. I worked hard to get Bush elected here in Jersey, but came up a little short. I'm still proud of my efforts though.
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.