• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Four years ago, the election was handed over for decision to the Supreme Court of the United States because of legitimate issues in vote counts and disenfranchisement. But in this election, the lawsuits were filed before the voting even began. And they continue to be filed based on the most trivial loopholes in law and election procedure.

Of course, the legal give and take will not subside for a while, but it is quite clear that President Bush has been re-elected as the president of the United States of America. Hence, it is also clear that the American people have undergone a revolution in their political mentality.

I understand that in the traditional sense Bush was not a strong candidate. His opponents slammed him with accusations under which any past president would wilt, accusations no past president had to face. Under Bush’s watch, the economy went into a slump, unemployment went up, and government tightened its stranglehold on Americans’ private lives.

In foreign policy, Bush’s failures were even more marked. He promised to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but did not deliver. During his presidency, Americans were humiliated as pictures from Abu Ghraib surfaced. He was blasted for ditching military service.

Michael Moore’s propaganda piece nailed him again and again with baseless accusations, while the 9/11 commission gave legitimacy to many dreadful decisions that the pundits were voicing.

On the other hand, and again in the traditional sense, Sen. John Kerry was a strong candidate.

He had a presidential style that resonated both with the people who voted for him and the aristocracy who backed him financially. He looked good and debated well. He was as fine a candidate as a candidate without principles could be.

The major and early accusation against Kerry was made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who attempted to tear up Kerry’s military record. But sound advice from former President Bill Clinton fixed that – Kerry moved away from his heroism and into the issues. He expanded on what he meant by “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” He made substantive attacks against the war and then came back unexpectedly to support it, sometimes even appearing like a hawk, with talk of “hunting down” terrorists.

That’s when he faced that final clamping condemnation: Kerry was a flip-flopper.

This rudimentary charge Kerry could not evade, except by flip-flopping again. And so Kerry had already lost.

Kerry had lost to a man who missed almost all the marks on the checklist of sound presidential candidacy. Except for one – the mark was conviction.

The tangible upshot of this was the understanding that America is in a time of war – a war for its prosperity and a war for its continued freedom.

In modern times, indecision has not been viewed as a character flaw. In fact, it has become synonymous with being “diplomatic” and “engaging in dialogue” and, the best and most rewarding one of all, “non-partisan.”

In the recent past, an indecisive president meant someone with an open mind who can consider all the options, talk with his people and the world, and come to sound, rational decisions on policy.

But in this day and age, these intriguing words amount to something dreadful, something ominously tragic for America’s future.

For in the past, the decision was about campaign finance reform or helping out Kosovo or upping taxes by 3 percent. The decision now is if and how the president of the United States will protect the most basic right of the citizen – the right to his own life.

A terrorist, anti-American culture that thrives thousands of miles from our easternmost bay is a culture that is rooted in two precepts: first, an ideology directly opposite that of the United States, and second, the will and the self-imposed obligation to use force to achieve goals.

In combination, these two ideas mean that at any given moment the United States might be attacked by chemical, biological or nuclear weapons attained by terrorists from their sponsor states. At any given moment, whole segments of America could be torn down. This is not the politics of fear – it is the unfortunate reality of our times.

The mentality of the American people has adapted to our new problem.

Bush won simply by doing and saying what he thought and believed to be right. All the political sophistry and tact in the world couldn’t have gotten Kerry elected. At least not with this newborn electorate.

Hovannisian is a second-year history and philosophy student. E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu.