Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's victory is the voice of an angry America
The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 11/11/2002 | Barbara Amiel

Posted on 11/10/2002 4:21:28 PM PST by Pokey78

When President Bush's spokesman announced on the morning after his tremendous election victory that the President would be saying nothing because "he thinks this is a time to be gracious", I wanted to reach for a brown paper bag. This was clever but too much treacle for me.

But American leaders often behave in ways that completely startle one. They have outpourings of unabashed spirituality or a personal relationship with the Almighty and it all seems to be quite genuine. President Carter asked forgiveness for lusting in his heart.

President Nixon asked Henry Kissinger to pray with him in the Lincoln bedroom, though Kissinger purports not to remember "whether I actually knelt" but did opt for a prayerful countenance. For all I know, President Bush, a committed Christian, may have truly been filled with the milk of human kindness that dictated he be "gracious" to all those vanquished opponents who called him stupid.

Graciousness aside, Americans still have teeth and they know how to use them, as this past election showed. In Georgia, the stern Republican contender for the Senate, a man named C Saxby Chambliss (a name ripe for use by novelist Tom Wolfe) warned his fellow Georgians to reject their Senator, Max Cleland, a triple amputee from the Vietnam war. "This man," said Chambliss, speaking of the legless one-armed combat veteran, "is soft on our nation's enemies."

The attack shocked many people but it is perfectly true that a war veteran and multiple amputee can easily (and understandably) be a dove on military policies. Cleland was not in favour of President Bush's Homeland Security Department. In the election that followed, C Saxby Chambliss defeated Senator Cleland.

In the post-election analysis, people who did not expect so decisive a Republican victory in both House and Senate placed emphasis on factors that seem to me beside the point. Bush's win, according to received wisdom, was due largely to: his great political strategist Karl Rove (The Times, the Financial Times), the fanning of fears about the war he alone wishes to wage (the Independent and the Guardian), "fix and gerrymandering" (Matthew Engel, the Guardian), and all of the above plus the lack of elaboration on their economic policies by the Democrats (the BBC).

Further, according to The Times's Peter Riddell, "the Republicans should not celebrate too much talk of a historic victory needs to be heavily qualified the margins are still very thin." The ethologist Konrad Lorenz would be more helpful than any of these experts.

America had a traumatic experience on September 11, 2001. The murder of 3,000 people cannot be easily forgotten. Americans are neither naive nor over-reacting, as some of the British like to say, snobbily pointing to their own sang-froid about the IRA, which, terrible though it is, has never come close to the horror of murdering 3,000 people in one go. When a nation has such a traumatic experience, it is natural to bond with whomever happens to be the leader at the time. "Imprinting" was what Lorenz called it.

Lorenz discovered that by being the first authority figure in the vision of newly born jackdaws and ducks, he could imprint himself for ever on their consciousness. The photos of Lorenz walking around his pond followed by the ducklings, who clearly viewed him as parent, sum up the role Bush now holds in the American consciousness.

This imprinting usually occurs only in the wild. In the case of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, it happened in Manhattan. For George W Bush it took place on that crisis day in September when the fundamental instinct and need of Americans was for leadership. Bush was there. To break such a bond would require him to do something pretty awful.

The way our political analysts talk about the effect of 9/11 on the election result makes it sound as though the Republicans manufactured the post-9/11 fear to help their campaign, rather than that they understood that post-9/11 required different policies and priorities. The Democrats went into the election as if it were business as usual.

Senior members of the Democratic National Committee urged the need for another amnesty for illegal immigrants and reform of naturalisation bills. In the weeks leading up to the election the DNC website was still emphasising that the Homeland Security Bill should not be passed without first solving all the union problems of the civil servants involved.

But while America was evenly split ideologically both before and after the election, the sense that America was at real risk superseded everything with ordinary Americans. They were less concerned with the economy than with national survival; less concerned with union demands than the support of their leader's plan to fight the war against terror. How was it that professional politicians in the Democratic Party got it all so wrong and were so unprepared for the totality of Bush's victory?

To use another zoological metaphor, they were rather like mongooses. A mongoose crouched in the bushes can spot the tiny triangular head of a snake but might easily miss a steamroller. It is attuned to look for danger from that small shape but doesn't have the field of vision for bigger threats. Similarly, the reality of war as a threat to America has simply not been a part of the post-war Democratic vision.

Electors may vote according to special interests such as gun control or the environment, or follow naked self-interest by demanding, for example, farm subsidies or higher wages to government employees. These groups are hard to dislodge. But there is a small group who often vote for different parties, and actually try to decide what is best for the country at a given moment. That group can swing an election. Those Americans did not feel that the immediacy of the 9/11 threat had passed and in the face of the remaining threat, they felt more secure with Republicans than with Democrats.

Each post-election day now brings a fresh analysis from the Democrats. They blame their defeat on poor leadership, their lack of clarity on economic issues. California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the star progressive of the liberal Left, has thrown her hat into the ring as future Minority Leader so that the party can move "back to its progressive roots". The Democrats are in a fog. They simply don't get it.

One can't really blame them. Democrats will fight for their country as hard as Republicans, but it is easier to recognise a threat that is in tune with your world view than one that isn't. Republicans might dismiss some environmental threat more easily than Democrats. Democrats might be more in tune with racial tensions than Republicans because they are watching out for such matters.

The notion of nations or fundamentalist groups hating America and trying to destroy it is deeply alien to the small "l" liberal Democrat. Democrats have their own notion of how the world works and being hated for being kind, generous and tolerant is not on their radar.

As for the notion now doing the rounds that the actual win of the Republicans was very narrow, this is not untrue but it is probably the most meaningless thing you can say. The difference between the gold medal and the silver is probably about 2/100th of a second but the consequences are light years apart. Any gain by the party in power in an interim election is astonishing.

All observers from Right to Left agree that the decisive factor in this election was Bush's campaigning, which strengthens his hand considerably. Finally, no matter how "narrow" the Senate win may be, Republicans will now have control of the committees and the President will be able to make his judicial appointments. Though 60 per cent of the Senate is needed to stop a filibuster, judicial appointments are almost never the subject of filibusters.

Americans are not natural conquerors, occupiers or even war-makers. But when they feel their national interest is threatened, they are as dangerous as a rattlesnake just stepped on. Once before, in 1941, the Japanese underestimated America aroused. This time, the world seems determined to underestimate the threat America faces.

I suppose everyone takes everyone else's pain in his stride; it's human nature. But what the world should remember is that all Americans were wounded on September 11, 2001, and wounded beings can be dangerous - even when they are generous, liberal, Yankee democrats. Ultimately, this election is the voice of the American people, telling the world of a great nation's anger and determination to punish its enemies, to pull together behind their President and to prevail.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: Republic
I like it too. Americans are angry and fed up with sleaze. We are not a sleazy people. We have values. We want things done in a timely fashion and we want to and will prevail. We are dangerous when threatened and we have been more than threatened, we have been attacked.
41 posted on 11/10/2002 6:34:48 PM PST by wingnuts'nbolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Okay,okay, Babs Amiel just has to show that she is independent thats all. She takes a tiny little shot at GWB. Heck he can take it and more. Glad Freepers seem to have read the article- credit where credit is due.

Hey, a lot of good stuff for our American friends there. Now for the old bit of Winston.

We shall go forward together.

Cheers.

42 posted on 11/10/2002 6:48:09 PM PST by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gr8eman
"...treacle..." End of story! No one says that, except people with too much time on their hands or dependent on a Thesaurus!

Thank's a big ditto!

43 posted on 11/10/2002 6:55:44 PM PST by blackbart1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: norge
Thank you for the insights on Amiel, Norge. She really said worthwhile mouthfuls. Would that we had something as insightful said here..........but then the propaganda controlled media here is out of step.
44 posted on 11/10/2002 7:05:11 PM PST by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Dont forget the man who strated it all,.El Rushbo.El Rushbo.El Rushbo.El Rushbo.
45 posted on 11/10/2002 7:07:53 PM PST by Helms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Timm
In fact it flies in the face of the fact thart Americans are more intune than ever- Fox, Rush, the Internet, etc.) 2000 got us juiced up.
46 posted on 11/10/2002 7:12:39 PM PST by Helms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
As one free American, I have the authority to speak for no one but myself. THat understood, I wish to remind the writer of this article and everyone else who sees my response -we are less angry, than wary and aware that the 9-11-01 attack upon us was not the end of hostilities against us and our freedom loving friends, but the beginning of what our foolish enemies are defining as a holy jihad. No one is safe from these deadly, passion driven beady eyed zealots.

The terrorist net is wrapped around the entire world, like a plastic bag over a human head, and the scheme of these militant Muslims, is to duct tape the bottom around our necks, until we sufforcate. It's not just America's war, but every non-muslim's war. THe Arab League's decision at it's recent meeting, that an attack against any Arab state would be considered an attack against every Arab state, has made it clear, that the Arab world would rather embrace even terrorist Arab states, than join the rest of the world in defeating terrorists, whatever it takes. Muslim's by extension there of have to be suspect as well-is their loyalty to peace and justice or to Arab's by blood, right or wrong?

America does not go to war in anger, but of neccessity, when war is the only answer. Trust me, no enemy has ever faced an angry America, just a determined America. We, are, capable of collective anger-pity the fool who forces us across that line.
47 posted on 11/10/2002 7:22:43 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
They are getting close to crossing that line.
48 posted on 11/10/2002 7:34:14 PM PST by bulldogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Helms
Yes, I should have started with "talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh".
49 posted on 11/10/2002 7:36:54 PM PST by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Amen to the last 2 paragraphs.
50 posted on 11/10/2002 7:43:52 PM PST by Ukiapah Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
[The Republicans] understood that post-9/11 required different policies and priorities. The Democrats went into the election as if it were business as usual.

It isn't just the Democrats - I get a very strong sense that the Europeans and certainly that the Arabs fully expected us to mourn for awhile and then get right back to business as usual. I believe they felt that the "war" talk was only that, and soon our concerns would turn inward toward the economy, the environment, and whatever collective multilateral nonsense was at the top of somebody elses' list at the moment.

Ain't gonna happen. We are really, truly, royally pissed off - not insecure, not afraid, not imprinting like ducklings, and not whimpering for Mommy Gummint to come hug us - we're pissed off and we're coming for them. Bush will lead or else; Clinton will get the hell out of the way or else. Afghanistan was an hoeurs d'oeuvre. Yemen was a hint. The very best Saddam can hope for is that he can talk us into turning the million-pound sh!thammer some other way, because it is coming down hard.

51 posted on 11/10/2002 7:45:32 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gr8eman
"...treacle..." End of story! No one says that, except people with too much time on their hands or dependent on a Thesaurus!

This is a British publication.
"...treacle..." is a very common term in England.
Sugary sweet...
52 posted on 11/10/2002 8:13:49 PM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: Pokey78
I guess in Calif. they're not angry enough yet!
54 posted on 11/10/2002 11:31:02 PM PST by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clintonh8r
One reason the Dems did so badly--very little hidden phone scare calling to whip up senior and minority support. That's a big difference from 1996 and 2000 and is part of the reason people wised up this time.
55 posted on 11/10/2002 11:38:21 PM PST by me3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: edwin hubble; gr8eman
"...treacle..." is a very common term in England.

They sell treacle in my local variety store.
In fact in Canada and Great Britain it is as ubiquitous
as the Oxford English Dictionary
which still is the only standard for the English language.

56 posted on 11/10/2002 11:42:40 PM PST by Nogbad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ChadGore
Put simply, today's democrat party doesn't enjoy majority leadership at either
the state or federal level.


But now for the good news...
The Democrats still control "The West Wing".

(I think it was Letterman who said that after the election results were known...)
57 posted on 11/10/2002 11:45:04 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Republic
I like the last two paragraphs

The last two are ok but some of the stuff before....jackdaws, ducks, mongoose....bullshit

58 posted on 11/10/2002 11:53:36 PM PST by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Anybody who doesn't think Bush has a mandate I dare them to go against the man. The divided country is a joke since only 50% even bother to vote. This election was a political earthquake for the RATS just like aLGore losing the 2000 election whit almost full employment and no war in sight. I think this election was the equivalent to 1968 and the hippie peace movemnt. If we lose momentum now it's our fault for letting the far right get too much power.
59 posted on 11/11/2002 12:14:12 AM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It's the Islam, stupid!
60 posted on 11/11/2002 12:14:58 AM PST by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson