Bush's victory is the voice of an angry America

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.

No, its the end of disinformation by the major media and newspapers. Thank god for the World Wide Web and FOX. I was ready for revolution a few years ago between the TV and the newspapers I felt like my feelings were being drowned out by them. So long Liberal Chumps !

The Demoncraps "West Wing" is a fantacy, but in their delusional state of mind, it is probably reality TV to them-maybe their reality period. No problem as long as they are not in a position to force the rest of us to submit to their insanity.

The democrats went on as if it were business as usual.

Indeed they did, and after Sept 11th, it is not the same anymore. The nation grew up a bit, for awhile at least. The Tommy controlled Senate angered the populace with his obstructionism on Homeland Security and Iraq while over 3000 Americans were barely cold in their graves.
It wasn't the "Economy stupid" this year afterall James dear, as you realized too late.

"Figure it out yourself."

Okay. You likely consider anyone who is dismayed over the murder of a hundred million babies over the last several decades, under the pretenious name of "A woman's right to choose,to be "Right Wing Extremists", and you probably define the following that way as well: THose who defend the Boy Scouts of America's right to allow only those who agree to abide by the rules, Those who are boycotting the United way for it's attack upon the Scouts, Those who demand secure borders and enforcement of Immigration laws, Those who support the right to keep and bear arms, A parents right to know and make the decision of wheather or not their teenage daughter gets an abortion, the neccessity of a death penalty and the enforcement there of and everyone who opposes the perversion and destruction of America.

Am I right so far?

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.