Confessing Evangelical

Next Tuesday an unhappy choice confronts the American people. To suffer a gloating Mark Steyn. Or to endure the sight of a jubilant Michael Moore thumping the air in the belief that he has just personally saved the world from military and ecological disaster. Grim though these alternatives are, with heavy heart we are minded to favour the first, and urge Americans to vote for Bush.

So begins this week's leading article in the Spectator, and by and large that reflects my own view. That puts me in a very small minority over here: Brits for Bush.

Here's the official Brits for Bush campaign poster, by the way:


If you think I'm kidding, then you should take a look at the opinion poll published in last week's Spectator (analysis available here, but the actual figures are only in the print edition).

According to this, only 15% of British voters would vote for Bush, compared with 47% support for Kerry. And not only did Kerry beat Bush among Conservative voters, but he was even more popular with Conservative voters than with Labour voters: 45% of Conservatives backed him, compared with 43% of Labour voters. Only 15% of Conservative voters would vote for Bush. Even Conservative MPs were split 50/50.

But even more striking were the figures for how people would "feel" depending on what the result was. Only 11% would feel "delighted" or even merely "happy" if Bush wins, with 53% being "unhappy" or "miserable". Conversely, 44% would be "happy" or "delighted" if Kerry were to win.

So how come I've ended up in this tiny minority - 2% - of British voters who will be delighted if Bush wins? Especially given how dismayed I was when he won in the first place. Well, it's hard to know where it start, but I recommend you read the Spectator piece in full, since I agree with most of what it says, including the reservations about Bush's economic policies (particularly his willingness to engage in protectionism).

Terrorism is a major factor: for all Kerry comes out with macho talk about "killing the terrorists" (yawn), his real attitude is probably revealed by his comments about wanting to revert to a situation in which terrorism is seen only as a "nuisance", like prostitution or organised crime. In other words, he wants to return to September 10th. Bush's response to terrorism may not have been perfect, but at least he gives the impression of genuinely understanding what is at stake.

But what pushes me from the 9% of Brits who would be merely "happy" to see Bush win, to the 2% that would be "delighted" is, quite simply, his opponent. Basically, I think John Kerry's a fake - all those shots of him playing football with his staff or going out hunting, just to show what a "regular guy" he is. All that self-aggrandising "I served" stuff. His hypocrisy and evasion on issues such as abortion (which, as everyone knows, he "personally opposes", though not enough to do anything to stop babies being cut to pieces in their mother's wombs). And of course, his swaying in the breeze over whether to be pro-war or anti-war (though, as the Spectator points out, those supporting John Kerry as the anti-war candidate are probably in for a very rude awakening if he wins).

Perhaps, as happened with Bush, I'll find myself warming to President Kerry over time (if the American people - or Kerry's army of 10,000 lawyers - force that unpleasant necessity upon me). But for now, I still find myself nodding vigorously in agreement with Tom Utley's summary a few months ago, when he said that (lacking any real knowledge about Kerry) he could only judge by appearances. And he didn't like what he saw:

What does [Kerry's] face tell us about him? If you ask me, he looks rich, humourless, ambitious, ruthless, vain and slightly dim. My guess is that he has a guilty secret of some sort, but I have no idea what it is. All this may be terribly unfair ... But I don't like the cut of the man's jib.

That's pretty much it. "I don't like the cut of the man's jib."