Redstate

By JayReding Posted in Elections — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The polls show the race becoming tighter and tighter. Kerry appears to have the momentum he lacked throughout August and September. Bush blew the first debate and his numbers sank. The media wants John Kerry to win and have become little more than shills for him.

A lot of Republicans are worried about the prospects of a President Kerry and what that would do to the US economy, the Surpreme Court, and most importantly the war on terrorism.

Let not your hearts be troubled - George W. Bush will be reelected. Why? Read on...

Liberal Sebastian Mallaby gives us an overview of why Bush has the upper hand in this race:

Bush offers a military vision, based on the idea that the best defense against terrorism is aggressive offense. He doggedly believes that by doing the "hard work" in Iraq, the United States will eventually create a democracy, transforming Middle Eastern politics. He is determined not to allow hostile global opinion to get in his way. Invoking Ronald Reagan in Friday's debate, he spoke forcefully about how it is more important to be right than to be internationally popular.

Kerry seems to reject most of this. He emphasizes homeland security, faulting Bush for shortchanging it. He stresses the importance of allies, which necessarily implies accepting a check on preemption, however much he denies it. On Iraq, Kerry's "plan" is a smoke screen. He says he would summon more help from allies, though little would be forthcoming. He says he would train Iraqi troops, but Bush is doing this already. If Kerry's plan to share the burden fell apart, would he stay committed anyway? It seems fairly unlikely.

If this is a fair description of the two candidates' positions, which one is preferable? The worry with Bush is that he underestimates how hard the "hard work" is: He sometimes implies that the victory of democracy is inevitable because all people in all places yearn always to be free -- a non sequitur that's belied by large numbers of dictatorships. He has repeatedly failed to commit resources in proportion to the vast tasks that he's taken on: he sent too few troops to Iraq, just as he opposed a more serious peacekeeping effort in Afghanistan.

And yet, on this overarching "what next" question, Bush is right. He is right that the best defense against terrorism is offense: Given the vast variety of targets from which terrorists can choose, the "homeland security" alternative is hopeless. He is right that preemptive war is a necessary option, and that we won't always know all of the facts about the threats we are preempting. And he is right, however unfashionable it may be to say so, that nation-building can be successful.

Remember that the average voter isn't a political junkie. The polls are far less important than who wins in the World Series or who's playing in the next college football match. They're concerned about their kids, their bills, and drinking with the guys on Friday nights. They have ballet practice and soccer games, and the last thing they care about are the preening punditocracy. Blogging sounds like something that lumberjacks do to them. They're news junkies as most Red State readers are.

At the end of the day they know one thing: on September 11, 2001 we were attacked, and we need to find those responsible and kick their a**es.

John Kerry's campaign hangs on the idea that our "allies" are the things that matter to America. In that he's badly misreading America's fundamental zeitgeist. We're a nation of cowboys at heart. We do what's right, and the very last thing that most Americans are thinking about is garnering the approval of the French.

The closest analogue to the United States is Australia. We both descend from the same frontier tradition and have the same kind of pioneer spirit. In Australia, John Howard, a man who has been one of the staunchest supporters of the war in Iraq creamed the liberal Mark Latham who supported a rapid pullout from Iraq and condemned the Howard government for "lying" about Iraq.

Sound familiar? It should - and if it doesn't read this analysis of Latham's political demise in The Age:

Here's a secret: electoral politics is mundane. There are such things as the electoral cycle and electoral gravity, which is why Howard won in 1996 but not nine years earlier, and why Malcolm Fraser would have beaten even Bob Hawke in 1977.

Anyone with a memory longer than a few days knows that many Australians were tired of the Howard Government come Saturday, and were looking for an alternative. What was on offer, however, was at once too risky and not different enough.

In fact, everything that is said about Mark Latham in that article could be said about John Kerry. Kerry keeps pressing on national security and fiscal conservatism - all Republican issues. He says that he'd handle the war differently, yet is vague or contradictory as to how exactly he would do it.

Basically, like Latham, Kerry is both too much like Bush and too risky to be elected.

That doesn't mean that Republicans should be complacent. A little fear of losing is a good motivator for action. Actions like joining the RNC's 72 Hour Program are excellent ways of ensuring that Bush remains in the White House.

At the same time, it's easy to look at the poll numbers and get a twinge of despair. However, when it comes down to the fundamental tenor of the electorate in this time of war, John Kerry is irretrievably stuck in the past. It's always smart to run like your candidate is 10 points behind, but it is equally important not to allow pessism cloud the will to win.

Make no mistake, no matter how many dirty tricks the Democrats pull, George W. Bush will win this election. We will make it happen, as the future of this country depends on it.