Smiling Tigers and Whining Lap Dogs
Or, why I'd vote for Bush if I could vote at all
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
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
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
