Beating George W. Bush
Alexander Marriott September 5, 2003

As the elections creep up Republicans are increasingly confident that they have the Presidency locked up and Democrats are fluctuating back and forth between despair that this is true and confident denial. The Republican opinion is, of course, wrong and the Democrat opinion is whiny and annoying. Bush is not unbeatable, as no President is, and Democrats aren’t predetermined to loose.

However, Bush can be made unbeatable; much like Ronald Reagan was in 1984 by the sheer honesty of the Democratic nominee. Whatever you may say about Walter Mondale, the Democratic nominee in 1984, he was exceedingly honest in his campaign, to his detriment.

He promised bigger government and bigger taxes to pay for it. He promised to stop defending the country so much and to deal kindly with our enemies. In essence he laid out in precise and honest words exactly what he and the Democratic party were all about, self-sacrifice for everything. Sacrifice to your fellow Americans and sacrifice to America’s enemies.

This message, while honest, was also overwhelmingly rejected by the American people with every state except Minnesota voting for Reagan in what was, to this day, the biggest electoral landslide in US history.

Americans, while overwhelmingly linking themselves to religions, which all preach self-sacrifice as the path to salvation or oneness or nirvana, are incredibly inconsistent on that point and remain a generally selfish people. This selfishness saved the country from the horrors of a Mondale presidency that would have made the Jimmy Carter presidency look good by comparison.

Of course the number of people who acknowledge their selfishness in a good way is severely limited as it is seen as immoral by most and evil by some. This is all beside the point though, because, in speaking of the upcoming presidential election, this general selfishness could be brought back into play.

If the Democrats run an honest campaign again they will make Bush unbeatable by default. This is simply because the philosophy of Democrats, when presented without the clichés and catchphrases, is truly heinous and un-American. Un-American simply meaning that it rejects individual rights, liberty, and the other ideas the country was founded and is predicated upon.

To beat Bush a candidate need merely point out Bush’s mistakes in office and his contradictions visa vie campaign promises and actual actions.

Bush promised to be a free trader and to cut back on farm subsidization. In both instances he lied and as a result increased farmer subsidies and steel tariffs. Both of these actions have hampered economic recovery by keeping the prices of farm products and steel artificially high.

An opposing candidate could also point out that Bush’s emphasis on religion has prevented his seeing properly that the enemy in the war on terrorism is religious mysticism. This in turn has allowed mullahs to come to power in Afghanistan when we should be making sure that the government established there is secular and free, nothing more and nothing less. The results in Iraq, it can be credibly argued, will probably be the same. The long term results of this folly will simply be war and oppression, which can be seen from the numerous examples that litter the history of Western Civilization.

One could argue successfully that George Bush, in fighting a war, hasn’t made the true sense of urgency really known to the American people. Usually when wars are fought there is a call to arms, not a draft, but it is clear that more troops are needed in general. This is simply because there is a plethora of enemies to be dealt with as soon as possible, i.e. within the next five years.

Dangerous countries have made it through the war unscathed thus far. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and elements of the Pakistani Government have been involved, overtly and covertly, in international terrorism for years. If we are fighting a war to truly eradicate these terrorists why aren’t we threatening military action against all of these countries? Part of the reason is a lack of forces, which I’ve mentioned already.

Also it has become clear that certain allies of ours have set themselves up as a counterweight to US foreign policy. This is because, philosophically, they are no longer in anyway friends of ours and they are aware of it. Why hasn’t the administration realized this and taken the proper actions, such as withdrawing from international organizations dominated by anti-US members and stopping all handouts to countries, like Egypt, that are hostile to us?

These policies are hurting us at home and abroad, but none of the potential enemies of Bush has raised all any of them, but only one or two in isolation. Libertarians are no better, agreeing with Ralph Nader, that the war is our fault and as long as we get out of all international entanglements (for Nader this is confined to military and private financial concerns only) the attacks will stop.

They both fail to realize that we are engaged in a massive war of ideas that goes beyond just terrorism and could lead to wars with a great many other countries further down the road. Removing ourselves from all international relationships would not stop mystical religious fanatics from attacking us. If anything it would only embolden them.

Republicans are ecstatic because the President pays lip service to ideas they like and has attacked some countries and is religious. Some are throwing around ludicrous terms like “great” to characterize the Bush presidency. He is unbeatable in their view.

Democrats think the improving economy is their ticket into the White House, because they mischaracterize all the economic statistics to make out like Bush has laid people off, when in fact he’s responsible for the creation of many new government jobs where people can never be fired except maybe when they kill someone.

If this remains the Democratic strategy then Bush will win. It won’t be like Reagan’s victory in 1984, but winning is winning, especially in the case of a second term.

Winning against Bush is actually easy, but it would require an intellectual who appealed to reason. In our current system he’d also have to be a millionaire because neither party would touch such a candidate with a ten foot poll. This is merely because when things are laid out logically only a brain-dead fanatic (a Religious fundamentalist or a socialist) wouldn’t be persuaded.

Luckily these people aren’t a majority even if they voted together.