When the issue is that of constant vigilance against an implacable enemy, the American people will uphold and support at the ballot box a George Bush and his resolute simplicities rather than a Bill Clinton and his narcissistic egotism.
Andrew, you fail to mention the strongest tool we have in any battle; our brain. I suspect that the "resolute simplicities" of Bush have placed us in the mess in Iraq, are losing the peace in Afghanistan, have cost us a critical measure of the support we need on the battle against terrorists from nation after nation throughout the world and from their peoples, and have created a boon for terrorist recruiters.
The old "we'll try so hard we cant' fail" myth seems to have captured the following of too many. The other side is trying hard too. In the end it will take leadership that understands the subtlety of international politics, that can weigh the realities of a complex world, that can deal with nuances and that is not bound by rigid ideas and righteous notions of what other people should, and will, do.
Most people have little or no confidence in the honesty or morality of Clinton. He's no better than many of our and Britian's past leaders and he's no worse in that respect. Most people do, however, have a tremendous respect for his ability to influence world leaders, connect to the people on the street throughout the world and to outthink almost anyone. If we have a chance to elect a president with those talents in a time of crucial need again, then he would easily defeat a simplistic, easily influenced and pedestrian thinker like Bush; especially after he'd proven, as Bush has, that he is virtually incompetent in making his "vision" a reality.
It really isn't about "good triumphing over evil," it's about competence winning over incompetence. The sooner we realize that and elect and appoint people with brains unclouded by righteous feelings of empowerment and invincibility, the sooner we'll see long term futures that look less bleak. |
