The Defeat of Kerry
Aloof Elitism, Moral Relativism and Meddling Outsiders
By Sara Pentz (11/11/04)

Pundits have spent thousands of hours and millions of words dissecting the 2004 presidential election results. Theories abound about why John Kerry lost and George Bush won. It’s all about moral values some say. No, it was the Swift Vets ads others say. Was it tax cuts, national security or abortion? Was it the lack of the youth vote or the Christian fundamentalists vote? Pick your reason and you’d be partially right.

It all boils down to a few points that account for the defeat of Senator John Kerry. And they are as clear as the arrogant look on his face.

The American public rejected John Kerry because they did not like his superficiality and his condescending elitism. They did not vote for him because they did not like that he stood for nothing but his own self-image. The American people did not elect Kerry because in their simple, hardworking lives they could not relate to the unimaginably lavish lifestyle he so flagrantly flaunted—that set him apart from them. It was so European.

The Red States rejected him because he was soft on terrorism. They did not choose him because he encouraged the impotent meddling of the United Nations, and cozied up to European leaders who are avowed enemies of a country devoted to individualism, free enterprise and the kind of confidence that makes this country so exceptional. It was so un-American.

Despite apocalyptic claims of systemic voter suppression, the scandal of the exit polls, the vandalized party headquarters, the threat of ten thousands of lawyers and general scare tactics—more than120 million Americans went to the polls and solidified the course of this president.

Against all odds, George Bush was the winner. He overcame the blatant media campaign against him. He prevailed over the billionaires who vowed to defeat him. He remained steadfast when party hacks, aging Hollywood comics and vindictive militants called him vile names. It was all so base.

He never swerved in the face of the hateful firestorm leveled at him by the left-wingers. His was a campaign of optimism and hope. You may not agree with all President Bush has said and done, but if it were not for his adherence to his own vision, the United States would be the worse off for many things, most importantly the fight against of terrorism.

American voters flatly rejected Mr. Kerry because they saw that he stood for absolutely nothing. He was against the Iraq war but he was for it. He was against gay marriage but he was for it. These are not idle flip-flops. They represent the lack of a core value system that guides actions, behavior and the character of man. Without them Kerry remained in an intellectual state of perpetual motion that canceled out each attempt at a stand and ended up forging a gigantic zero around his head.

John Kerry simply cannot make up his mind on any issue because—it is a documented fact—he took a poll of his colleagues at every turn in order to know where he should stand. In fact, his are the vacillations of a mind that is not capable of taking a stand because it is fastidiously focused on only one goal—a zealot’s all-consuming need to be President of the United States. He was preoccupied with this personal fanaticism from an early age and, as such, nothing—absolutely nothing—could take precedence over that in his thinking.

As political commentator George Will so aptly pointed out—Kerry’s was a biography candidacy. It was all about his Vietnam record and that proved to be the predominant issue that most assuredly sunk the premise of his candidacy. Most people do not go around bragging about their heroism. For a presidential candidate to do so with such cocky swagger and artificial pomp, without providing a campaign of ideas for the future, is the height of pretension. He was like a broken record, repeating over and over again what a good fellow he was. Even so, despite all the money behind him, the media of hate and the ragtag of vagabond celebrities touting him, he was not to be believed. Braggadocio cannot top substance.

Kerry’s philosophy, which also reflects that of many democrats—particularly those in Washington DC—consists of a subjective view of life and a moral relativism that necessitates a kind of broad ‘whatever’ attitude on everyday issues. His is a life without absolutes, without accountability, without values. If anything, this is why the exit polls reflected the so-called ‘moral values’ theory of his defeat.

The moral values issue is not, however—as some would condescendingly say—about the singular issues of religious preferences or gay marriages. It is far more fundamental than that. Instead, to most Americans morality encompasses the values of honesty, integrity, hard work, belief in themselves, a love of their country and an ardent passion for the virtues of freedom and enterprise. These are what defeated a John Kerry who seemed to be without them except in some superficial vague way.

For Kerry and his ilk words have no meaning. Their words do not represent a solid commitment to anything in particular, rather to everything in general. They are merely tools to toss around in order to curry favor and gain access to power—or to blaspheme and degrade their opponents. Kerry’s words were not those of the great leader that the American people deserve.

Beneath it all the average Joes could see through the ruse because it was as obvious as the nose on Mr. Kerry’s face. His affectations of superiority, his arrogance, his belief in his own entitlement—these characteristics were transparent. He stood for the worst conceit of the Liberals—their view that they are morally superior to what they would call ‘religious fanatics, racists, homophobes and cowboys.’ Kerry saw the rest of the folk as stupid hicks—in contrast to his view of himself as benevolent, worldly and wise.

As Victor David Hanson, a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, wrote for National Review online, “His (Kerry’s) unsolvable problems ranged from his Brahmin, aristocratic coldness and deductive pessimism, to his transparent and opportunistic flip-flopping…”

Hanson’s evaluation is right on target. He wrote, “The East and West Coasts and the big cities may reflect the sway of the universities, the media, Hollywood, and the arts, but the folks in between somehow ignore what the professors preach to their children, what they read in the major newspapers, and what they are told on TV. The Internet, right-wing radio, and cable news do not so much move Middle America as reflect its preexisting deep skepticism of our aristocracy and its engineered morality imposed from on high.”

As for aloof elitism, moral relativism or meddling outsiders, Americans basically don’t like other people dictating to them—whether its Barbra Streisand, Kofi Annan, Jacques Charac or John Kerry. They made that clear in the election of 2004 by voting for George W. Bush.