The Current Crisis
The Wages of Hatred

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 11/4/2004 12:06:58 AM


WASHINGTON -- For the most perceptive insight into George W. Bush
and the Republicans' robust victory over Senator Jean-François Kerry
and the Democrats, look to Tom Wolfe. As usual America's finest
living writer sees America with limpid clarity. In a pre-election
interview with the British newspaper The Guardian Wolfe observes
that the eastern media elite "do not have a clue about the rest of
the United States. You are considered twisted and retarded if you
support Bush in this election." Well, a record 59 million voters did
support Bush. "I have never come across a candidate who is so
reviled," Wolfe continues, "Reagan was sniggered at, but this is
personal, real hatred."

As always in matters where intellect should preside, the liberals
became emotionally involved, losing what little political sense they
still had. They diabolized a perfectly agreeable gentleman, whose
major fault is that he disagrees with them. At the same time they
overlooked the glum fact that their latest political messiah is a
perfectly dreadful candidate, whom they plucked from a field of
perfectly dreadful candidates. If the Republicans ran such a
ludicrous fantasist as the snooty football-throwing, bicycling
Renaissance man, Senator Kerry, everyone in the world would be made
aware of his shortcomings. As it was, the Democrats and their
secretarial staff at CBS, the New York Times and elsewhere in the
media ignored Kerry's every botch and every flight into bizarre
pretentiousness. Thus they still cannot understand how the President
won.

Kerry's basic shortcoming was that, being a fantasist, he was
forever taking implausible positions and saying things that were
demonstrably untrue. That gave the American electorate an uneasy
feeling about this boastful aspirant to the White House. His liberal
supporters saw nothing amiss with his b.s.-ing. Apparently they did
not think it mattered whether "foreign leaders," as Kerry
bragged, "look at you and say 'You gotta beat this guy.'" Nor did it
matter to liberals when in debate Kerry b.s.-ed that "I went to meet
with the members of the Security Council in the week before we
voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how
serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable."

Aloft in his egotistic fantasy Kerry did not believe in anything
real, not the war in Iraq nor even the contrariness and corruption
of the United Nation. This explains why Kerry made more fantastical
statements about his opponent, his own policies, and his own résumé
than any presidential candidate I can recall, including Bill
Clinton. At some point I think the American people caught on. They
recognized this man as a fraud.

The President on the other hand is obviously genuine. He is
committed to waging war against our enemies. He has given the United
Nations a chance to cooperate, but he is not going to tie us to its
endless dithering. When the Massachusetts Braggart rumbled that
President Bush "deceived us" on going to war with Iraq, the charge
did not stick. The electorate realized that the evidence did not
support the charge. The world is better off with Saddam in a cell.
Our enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere now know that to strike
a blow against America is to hazard destruction.

For me most of Senator Jean-François Kerry's extravagances were
amusing, but there was one that was shameful and unforgivable. He
took a war that had national support and politicized it. He made it
difficult for Democrats to support the war. Worse still, in
rendering the war controversial he gave aid and comfort to our
enemies. This is not the first time he gave aid and comfort to our
enemies. The Swift Boat Veterans made it clear Kerry did the same
thing thirty-five years ago. That Kerry tried to focus our attention
on his performance all those years ago is but more evidence that he
lives in a fantasy, and, by the way, has manifestly bad judgment.

Now that he has been defeated the liberals are going to try to
figure it all out. Some will say that obviously they have to reach
out to other geographical regions in the country. Maybe they will
even catch on that what the rest of the country considers moral
issues are genuine. But there is another matter they might
investigate. Why is it that so few of their presidential candidates
are normal? Why are so many fantasists with egregious lapses in
their résumés? In 1992 the nominated a draft dodger. In 2004 their
so-called war hero was actually a war resister. In the last days of
the campaign researchers dredged up the evidence that this war hero
did not even get an honorable discharge from the service. Democrats
had better look harder for heroes.