Thursday, November 04, 2004
Vindication
Savoring the victory.
President Bush's win last night was a ratification of the good sense of the American public. Between the end of the Cold War and the start of the war on terrorism, the public was not able to reach a political consensus — as evidenced by the failure of any presidential candidate to reach an absolute majority of the popular vote. After September 11, the public seems to have reached that consensus. The public trusts the Republican party to wage the war on terrorism, and about the Democratic party it has no such confidence.
That judgment is correct. The Democrats, including John Kerry, are known to have bad instincts on national security. Kerry and like-minded Democrats have a deep distrust of American power. Kerry spent the last year suggesting, and appealing to the sentiment, that we could return to a pre-9/11 posture.
“Bush ran a campaign that,
while not flawless, was better than
any Republican presidential campaign
for, well, 16 years.”
This issue is not, of course, the only reason Bush won. He ran a campaign that, while not flawless, was better than any Republican presidential campaign for, well, 16 years. Moral issues have become a substantial advantage for Republicans. (The growth in the Republican advantage in rural areas seems to be based on this fact.)
If John Kerry had won, the nation would have suffered through a renewal of the Vietnam syndrome: an unwillingness to use military force even when necessary. Europe would have seen his victory as a reason to oppose any American impulses in this direction.
Considerable credit today must go to Bush personally, who was an energetic and appealing candidate. He risked his presidency on Iraq, in an exercise of principled and brave leadership. He withstood enormous pressure to buckle in reaction to setbacks there, and his strength and resolve ultimately saw him through in this election. Also, Dick Cheney campaigned tirelessly for the ticket and proved to be an asset on the campaign trail as well as in the West Wing.
The president overcame the hostility of liberals, the media, European public and elite opinion, and some of the deepest pockets of the Left. He also guided his party to a broad victory: Not since 1936 has a president won reelection with expanded majorities in the House and Senate. Democrats will now have to rethink their positions on foreign policy and, if they have the stomach for it, on social issues as well. Smart Republicans, however, will know that they cannot afford hubris. They dodged a bullet. They need to promote a conservative agenda that builds on the Republicans' strength on national security and moral values while expanding their base. Bush still has to win the war on terrorism (beating the insurgency in Iraq is a profound challenge), reform entitlements, and get conservative judges through the Senate. But since his victory advances all of those goals immeasurably, he can take a moment to savor it, as we will.
Savoring the victory.
President Bush's win last night was a ratification of the good sense of the American public. Between the end of the Cold War and the start of the war on terrorism, the public was not able to reach a political consensus — as evidenced by the failure of any presidential candidate to reach an absolute majority of the popular vote. After September 11, the public seems to have reached that consensus. The public trusts the Republican party to wage the war on terrorism, and about the Democratic party it has no such confidence.
That judgment is correct. The Democrats, including John Kerry, are known to have bad instincts on national security. Kerry and like-minded Democrats have a deep distrust of American power. Kerry spent the last year suggesting, and appealing to the sentiment, that we could return to a pre-9/11 posture.
“Bush ran a campaign that,
while not flawless, was better than
any Republican presidential campaign
for, well, 16 years.”
This issue is not, of course, the only reason Bush won. He ran a campaign that, while not flawless, was better than any Republican presidential campaign for, well, 16 years. Moral issues have become a substantial advantage for Republicans. (The growth in the Republican advantage in rural areas seems to be based on this fact.)
If John Kerry had won, the nation would have suffered through a renewal of the Vietnam syndrome: an unwillingness to use military force even when necessary. Europe would have seen his victory as a reason to oppose any American impulses in this direction.
Considerable credit today must go to Bush personally, who was an energetic and appealing candidate. He risked his presidency on Iraq, in an exercise of principled and brave leadership. He withstood enormous pressure to buckle in reaction to setbacks there, and his strength and resolve ultimately saw him through in this election. Also, Dick Cheney campaigned tirelessly for the ticket and proved to be an asset on the campaign trail as well as in the West Wing.
The president overcame the hostility of liberals, the media, European public and elite opinion, and some of the deepest pockets of the Left. He also guided his party to a broad victory: Not since 1936 has a president won reelection with expanded majorities in the House and Senate. Democrats will now have to rethink their positions on foreign policy and, if they have the stomach for it, on social issues as well. Smart Republicans, however, will know that they cannot afford hubris. They dodged a bullet. They need to promote a conservative agenda that builds on the Republicans' strength on national security and moral values while expanding their base. Bush still has to win the war on terrorism (beating the insurgency in Iraq is a profound challenge), reform entitlements, and get conservative judges through the Senate. But since his victory advances all of those goals immeasurably, he can take a moment to savor it, as we will.
Comments:
Post a Comment
