And what of the Republicans?

So I watched a fair bit of the Republican convention - partly as a newcomer and fly-on-the-wall to America, I felt it important, though I fully expected the spectacle to be more informative than the speeches.

I was not disappointed. By God, they're a class act. The confidence, the strength of the claim "we are for America" and "we are 100% right" carries such conviction. None of the Democrat's simpering worry that someone might suspect them of having principles that might interfere with government - the Republicans have principles and they don't give a damn if you disagree with them. They don't even give a damn if those principles are inconsistent, ill-educated, insular, and dangerous - all those appelations are just so many long words spouted by girlie-men liberals who, like me, are out of touch with the American mainstream and easily brushed aside.

All forgotten is the importance of weapons of mass destruction. Now it's the Republicans pointing out that a boxcutter can be a weapon of mass destruction, so Iraq was clearly still dangerous. According to General Tommy Franks, we all believed, like the President, that weapons of mass destruction were there, so the President and his Republican Guard can't be blamed for an honest mistake (in spite of the warnings of the United Nations, the arms inspectors and millions of protestors around the world - see July 20th posting We told you so!!!). The General also moved the crowd to cheers with his claim that "we can fight the war here or we can fight the war there" as a justification for invasion. The bravado, the machismo, the raw strength! By contrast, the Democrat whimper that "there" is a pretty big and varied place and it helps to be more specific about where and who you fight sounds weak and indecisive - just too picky and after-the-fact to be properly American.

Speeches from the lady whose travel business is booming thanks to government contracts - more cheers, even though most of the delegates should have been cringing at the thought of a Republican government spending its way out of recession. The lady hosting a meeting in Pennsylvania - she's black, she's Republican and proud of it, and tax-cuts "du-uh - I like more money in my pocket, raise your hand who doesn't!" Of course I like more money in my pocket, but I don't take out a pay-day loan every month to create the illusion, I budget and spend within my means to make sure that the money in my pocket is real and stays there. However, it did give me the idea for a new business venture - "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE PAYDAY LOANS", the idea being that people take out a loan that their children are liable for in order to be able to spend more in the short term. Would you ever do this as an individual? Of course not. Would you vote for a government who does it for you? Well du-uh, of course you would.

Now John Kerry - he's in favour of big taxation and big spending, and in spite of the President's promises to get more people into school, more people into college, more people into adult education and more people into healthcare we know that the President is in favour of keeping spending tightly under control - low taxation and the economy depend on it. Except for money for war. Unlike wanton spending on WELFARE which is fuelled by TAXATION, wanton spending on WARFARE is fuelled by PATRIOTISM. As the President put so clearly, John Kerry's questioning of the wisdom of this spending and the use to which it is being put is not a sign that he's willing to be careful with the people's money, it's because he is not a patriot - and this desire for checks and balances proves that he is also not a conservative.

And so I rant on. As far as I could tell, not one piece of Republican rhetoric stood up to scrutiny if considered as part of a supposedly coherent whole. Of course, one expects that in politics - every leader will give you a stronger, safer, more caring country and all for less money, and any leader who fails to promise this will not be elected. However, this was extreme - I have not heard such wanton inconsistencies glossed over, such follies cheered, and yes, such flip-flops endorsed, in a long time. The President's speech even legitimized the invasion of Iraq claiming that the United Nations resolution had provided for it - after spending months failing to get such a resolution and then saying "what the hell, we don't need the UN anyway!" it seems that the UN was willing all along. The policy of courting allies is despised as weakness, while at the same time the credit is taken for having so many allies.

But the Republicans are strong - they know their business, they know that the electorate will put truth and reason to one side and vote with images and totems, and those they provide. President Bush's speech was a keystone and a marvel. With the death-toll mounting, with 17 more civilians killed by an American bomb in Iraq that day, with the freedoms America rebelled from Britain to protect suspended, and with the number of Americans in poverty and without healthcare increasing steadily, his call to follow him in bringing continuing freedom and posterity to America and a grateful world rang clear as a bell. Standing alone but among the cheering multitude, he is the beacon of democratic freedoms, a first among equals, a man of simple faith and firm conviction, no more than an American citizen but capable of spreading God's liberty to mankind like no other. He has no pretensions, and no other man on earth could do such a fine job. Four more years.