EmperorofIceCream

Join Date 09/2004

Smiling Tigers and Whining Lap Dogs

Or, why I'd vote for Bush if I could vote at all

An article in the British newspaper 'The Guardian' (known for its liberal, left-leaning stance) referred to George Bush as a 'smiling tiger'. The inference being that President Bush, because he is determined, because he is an exponent of the right-wing of American politics, because he is a Christian who neither hides nor obfuscates his religious beliefs in the interest of gaining a renewed mandate, is somehow more 'dangerous' than his opponent, John Kerry.

I am a recent immigrant to the USA, not yet a citizen, and so not entitled to vote in this election. If I could vote, I'd vote for Bush.

Why?

Partly because of the contrast between what I saw of the portrayal of Bush in the British media before I left that parochial, self-obsessed little island to come here, and what I've seen of the response to Bush on the part of the natural-born Americans whom I've met since I've been here (just over a year).

I've learnt that Americans are perfectly sincere in their much-derided (at least, in Europe) belief in the individual. And I've learnt too that the American aspiration to individual prosperity, individual freedom, individual autonomy, has at least some basis in how they run their country and how they live their lives. It is a cardinal tenet of European political scepticism that these things are objectively untrue, are at most a kind of smokescreen adopted to conceal the rapacious greed and self-interest of all Americans - except Democratic Americans, of course.

I have learned that those currently in power in America were truly and honestly both dumbfounded and revolted by the events of 9/11, and that they honestly and sincerely seek to do no more than defend the lives and welfare of those citizens for whom, and to whom, they are responsible.

I have seen that Mr. Kerry is a self-seeking, self-aggrandizing, political opportunist tied to the purse-strings of his wife, a man incapable of making a decision without first consulting an opinion poll as to whether or not it will be politically expedient on any particular day to support any particular position - and not above reneging on that position when it suits his purpose to do so.

Bush is demonized by the British press of the left, just as Kerry is lionized by them, to a degree that most Americans, if they were exposed to it, would find fantastic. His policies are judged in terms, not of their effectiveness, but of the degree to which they conform to a kind of redistributive libertarianism that, to most of the Americans I have so far met, would be fundamentally revolting. Kerry is lauded and praised to the skies for the same reason.

What I have discovered, in my first year here, is something of the integrity and honesty of the American character; its self-reliance, its dedication to fair reward for honest effort, and the right to keep that reward for the benefit of oneself and one's family. I have discovered an honest and indefatigable will to give to others, not for the rewards which such giving might bring in the future but because it is deemed right to give.

And I can honestly say that, since I have looked at Bush through the lens of the culture which is his home, to which he is dedicated, which he assiduously and efffectively promotes at every turn, I have come to see a man who is American through and through.

Whereas, in Kerry, I have come to see a man willing to exploit every division in American society for his own ends, a politician without principle or conviction, a man who shamelessly exploits his record as a veteran while condemning others for not doing so, a hypocrite incapable of publicly standing up for his own, supposedly, most cherished beliefs, and an accommodationist who can reach agreement with anyone, no matter how vile (the racial demagogue Sharpton springs immediately to mind) so long as they can provide him with some political edge in the campaign for the White House.

Perhaps Bush is a smiling tiger, and perhaps his policies may not lead to a world where each gets according to the volume at which he whines for more, and each gives according to his ability to hide resources (as would be the case if Kerry were to win).

But personally I'd rather be led by a tiger (one with charm enough to smile) than a lap-dog that can do no more than yip for treats - for itself and all those like it.

Link

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

Hear, Hear. Spot on, as they say.

Welcome to America, and thank you for those wonderful compliments about our fellow citizens. And thanks for having the open-mindedness to see what you've seen and the courage to share your impressions. May you be happy and successful here, for as long as you wish to stay.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

That's a big inference to make - calling someone a tiger usually means that they are intelligent, cunning and ferocious. The Guardian is definitely anti-Bush, but not because they give him a compliment.

I have learned that those currently in power in America were truly and honestly both dumbfounded and revolted by the events of 9/11

Surely they can't be so naive as to think that Newton was wrong, that there is no reaction to action. I think it's fair to say Americans as a people were dumbfounded, but ignorance amongst the leadership is not a positive, it's a threat.

However I do agree with you - I'd rather be led by a tiger than a lapdog (my current prime minister is usually portrayed as a lapdog in the press).

Successfully updated karma reason!

I left that parochial, self-obsessed little island to come here

Those that hate what they are can never love what they become.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Those that hate what they are can never love what they become.

Those with the wit to appreciate what they are may become something greater. And I said nothing at all about love of country, one way or the other, only that Britain is a parochial, self-obsessed little island.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To Cactoblasta:

That's a big inference to make - calling someone a tiger usually means that they are intelligent, cunning and ferocious

If someone is intelligent, cunning and ferocious, it usually means they are regarded as dangerous. Or how many intelligent, cunning and ferocious people do you know who are push-overs, wimps and pussies?

The Guardian is definitely anti-Bush, but not because they give him a compliment.

It wasn't intended by the writer of the piece as a compliment.

Surely they can't be so naive as to think that Newton was wrong, that there is no reaction to action.

To which 'they' are you referring? The American people? The American government? European political sceptics? As for your theory that there is always a political reaction to some political action, I suggest you review the history of the 20th. century, in particular those aspects of it known as 'appeasement'.

I think it's fair to say Americans as a people were dumbfounded, but ignorance amongst the leadership is not a positive, it's a threat.

I agree with you that ignorance among the leaders of any great nation is a bad thing, but I didn't say that the American leadership, or the American people, were in ignorance. I said they were honestly dumbfounded and revolted by 9/11.

I believe that, even today, the American people as a whole are ignorant of the enormous depth of hatred, the vitriolic rage, levelled against them in some parts of the world. I also believe that President Bush's seeming certainty that democracy plus liberal capitalism will resolve that hatred is largely wishful thinking. Democratic liberal capitalism, should it be transplanted to the Middle East, will prove an alien plant set down in an environment that is fundamentally hostile to it. If it survives at all it will do so only because it is constantly sheltered and supported by America - at no small cost to the American people and the American economy.

America is wealthy enough to support the parasites of Israel. But what if America must support four or five such greedy mouths, and do so indefinitely?

Successfully updated karma reason!

To Daiwa:

Thanks.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Great stuff!
For all who say the President is not intelligent; please go to Little Whips Lair for a healthy discussion.
If you want to know his SAT scores and such, pick up Ben Stein's book Can America Survive? he slaps down
the namecallers with facts. What fun!
G/L in VA!

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

I'll concede your point about the tiger comment on the dangerous grounds, but I still think it was a pretty passive-aggressive insult at the most. Calling him a hay-horned bull or a snake would be more negative.

but I didn't say that the American leadership, or the American people, were in ignorance. I said they were honestly dumbfounded and revolted by 9/11.

Forgive me, but I mistook your use of the word "dumbfounded" for "amazed". There must be another American meaning of which I am unaware. It did not take a political scientist to see that there would inevitably be a violent act of terror on American soil. If the government was surprised and stunned to see it happen, then I suggest this means they are ignorant - it was merely a matter of time before someone struck back on US soil. Amazement should not be the first response because there was nothing unexpected about the attack. It had been culminating for over a decade.

I agree with your analysis of Bush's belief in democracy and liberal capitalism, but I consider his steadfast refusal to address the realities of regional politics in the Middle East to be either the result of ignorance or unnecessary bloodymindedness. Both are unwanted characteristics in a national leader, although admittedly Bush's opponents are no better.

As for your theory that there is always a political reaction to some political action, I suggest you review the history of the 20th. century, in particular those aspects of it known as 'appeasement'.

In this case the obvious result of appeasement was politics by other means - war.

Successfully updated karma reason!