EUrophobe
Thursday, November 04, 2004
 
They're Americans, what did you expect?
So, the Yanks have re-elected George Bush, proving that just over half of their voting electorate are red-necked, gullible half-wits who've been suckered into buying the "We're under threat / at war / all going to die" line - rather like their President has, one might suggest (representative government at its most literal!). I predicted (with a heavy heart and an overwhelming sense of the inevitable) a Bush victory by 10 - I was surprised the victory margin was as large as it turned out to be; that said, it was clearly all over when Florida came in Republican, and it serves the Democrats right for selecting such an uncharismatic mong as their candidate. Emphatic though Kerry's victories were in the debates, US politics seems to come down to the sound-bite, and "good ol' boy" Bush had that licked where Kerry seemed wooden and forced.

One thing that puzzled me throughout the campaign was the contradictory messages coming from both sides. Bush preaches "small government", yet advocates increased state interference in the lives of their citizens by restricting abortion and the like and foisting onto people his own hard-line pro-Christian agenda through government investment in such choice items as "faith based" projects, etc. Not to mention the fact that he's taken a $2 billion budget surplus and turned it into a -$5 billion deficit in four years, or that levels of state expenditure have mushroomed during his presidency. Hey! - he implemented tax cuts, so that's ok...

The Democrats are just as bad, however. They seemingly advocate nothing short of a welfare state - idiocy, surely, given the example of the unmitigated disaster of the welfare state in this country. Yes, a basic level of healthcare is needed for your poorest citizens, but steady on! It's a fine line between taking care of the most needy and creating a cash-sucking NHS-style drain on the state and Kerry seemed to be leaning towards the latter.

And the horrible hypocrisy of the Democrat position is evident in their rhetoric; they preached equality of opportunity for all, and talked about creating "One America" - yet they advocate positive discrimination, the best way of creating resentment and socially engineering a deeply unfair selection method for jobs, university places and the like. America's social problems are clearly far more deeply rooted than university places and jobs; they stem from poverty and poor basic education levels and constructing a false system of selection further along the line doesn't address the problem at the base, it merely creates a facade of equality for a lucky few, leaving behind those most needy.

So, pity America for having to make a choice between a intellectually-challenged, gung-ho simpleton and a bien-pensant, head-in-the-clouds liberal do-gooder. I still fear that, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, they made the wrong choice.

Comments:
No, I'm afraid I don't know this "Jack" person you're talking about. It's good to see that you have have the usual command of written English that one has come to expect from our transatlantic cousins, i.e. minimal. If you're going to post on this blog, at least try and maintain SOME sort of lip service to the usual rules of grammar and syntax. And, for the record, paragraphs are a Good Thing.

Look! Here's a new one! Finally, for the record, my father is Texan and I studied US politics at University (I what the vice president does [well, apart from ensuring record profits for Halliburton, obviously] and how the electoral college works and EVERYTHING), so I have a rather better notion of what I'm talking about than most from this side of the Pond.

So there.
 
Now, you see, that's slightly better. At least you're making more of an effort rather than merely slinging insults around like an out-of-control power hose. What, exactly, upsets you so much about this post (other than polysyllables)?

I've merely made the point that in the US elections, policies and rhetoric on both sides didn't necessarily match up; I think the American people were conned by Bush on the security issue and showed an unusually high level of gullibility; I didn't like John Kerry either; I felt sorry for the USA for having to choose between two such poor candidates; that said, I prefered Kerry to Bush (just).

The post was a reasoned opinion; I gave my view, and said why I hold it. Why the massive chip on your shoulder?
 
Good points, one and all. Thanks for your contribution. Dealing with your arguments roughly in turn:

1) Yes, I strenuously object to Bush's foreign policy (and I reject the term "defence" policy). The US was under no threat from Iraq. There was no immediate WMD threat to the UK or the US from Iraq, and there were certainly no Iraqi links to the 11/9 attacks (in the case of attacking the latter, you'd have needed to start with Saudi Arabia...) - all of which we were assured was true.

Yes, Saddam was a deeply unpleasant fellow and on balance, it's good that he's gone. My primary objection over Bush's foreign policy is that he insists on dragging other nations along with him, and that
"we the people" were lied to about the reasons for going to war (and, given, that's equally as much Blair's fault as it is Bush and Powell's).

2) "Governing with the moral consensus..." Hmm, not so sure about that. In principle, I'm as deeply worried about Christian fundamentalism as I am Islamic fundamentalism; OK, in practice the latter is undeniably far worse, but it all ultimately comes down to wanting to force your own religious beliefs upon someone else. I don't believe a) that religion has any place in government, and b) that government should fund religious activities.

3) I don't think credit for winning the election should go to Bush; it's undeniably Karl Rove who is the genius mastermind behind the victory. He a) got out the God squad vote in droves, and b) got people believing the "America is under threat; only Bush can keep you safe" line. Credit to him.

4) I wouldn't deny for a second the fact that the USA has the right to run itself; it doesn't necessarily mean I have to like the way they do so, though, particularly when it means dragging the UK into wars in which our military has no place. And when that happens, it means that the Brits have an unquestionable right to pass comment thereupon.
 
I disagree with the line used about the 'war on terror'. If it were true, then, as Foxy rightly says, we would have gone to war with Saudi. Not sure how BAe systems would have felt about that, however. Still, if the US goes to war with Iran, they won't have to worry about their hypocracy over SA, I suppose.

I think it should be made clear. The Iraq 2003 invasion was not a pre-emptive attack. It was not self-defence in response to the terrorist attacks on september 11th(which would have involved shooting the planes out of the sky)and it was not a reprisal. It was an illegal invasion.

Clever ol' karl, though. He Got Bush re-elected inspite of all this!
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger