A few weeks ago I considered writing a blog asserting, some two months from polling day, that George W Bush was certain to win the US presdential election. I like to make bold predictions. When they don't come off, they make you look like a fool, but when they do, it's a marvellous excuse to be smug.
I'm glad though that I was retcicent in this case. After two good debates by Kerry, it has dawned on me that I might just be seing his face on the news every day for the next four years. Prior to the debates I had a gut (or perhaps that should be gut-wrenching) feeling that, however tight the polls, somehow Bush was bound to win. After all, he won last time even though he lost.
Bush's "aura of invincibility" has now gone, but he's still in with a good chance of coming out on top on November 2nd. Logically speaking, he shouldn't be. Given his administration's miserable economic recotd, its disastrous adventurism in Iraq and Bush's own evident idiocy, this presidential race shouldn't even be tight. Teresa ought to be picking out new curtains for the Oval Office already. Forget Iowa, Texas should be a battlegroud state.
Given such an obviously bad record, does the fact that Bush is still in with a good chance of winning show that America is a deeply conservative country? Yes and no.
The majority of Ameircans in my view, are not marching shoulder to shoulder, ideologically speaking, with the Tom Delays of this world. The last time a Republican got more votes than a Democrat in a presidential election, the Berlin Wall was still standing. What's more, as Michael Moore often points out, polls show Americans well to the left of the GOP on a whole range of issues from abortion to gun control. The US is not, as some Europeans would like to believe, populated by 280 million John Ashcrofts.
But while America may not be a country with a "natural" right-wing majority, it is a country where the right is extremely strong. The conservative movement is such a force in the States for two reasons: money and, for want of a better word, mission.
The financial factor is the more obvious of the two but perhaps the less important. To get elected in the US you need air-time, which means you need cash, simple as that. The more dollars a candidate can raise, the more likely they are to win. A big campaign war-chest isn't sufficient in itself, but it is a great help.
Bush is renowned as the master fundraiser, able to bring in quite staggering levels of cash for his election efforts. This money is spent portraying his opponent in a negative light. Think of Kerry and what word comes to mind? Flip-flop. That's what $200 million will get for you. Of course, the Dems play exactly the same game, but they always play with a weaker hand. For all that the Democrats are pro-business these days, they can never be quite as pro-business as the Republicans. They will always be fighting an uphill battle.
But the fact that Bush outspends Kerry is not enough to explain why he still might well win an election he relly should lose. The second key advantage for the right is their sense of mission, something which liberals in America singularly lack.
In America today, it is the Democrats who are the conservatives in the dictonary sense. They are the ones trying, however half-heartedly to defend the status quo when it comes to issues like workers' rights, abortion and affirmative action. Republicans by contrast are the radicals, always on offense, always looking to change.
This strident conservatism includes all aspects of the right, from the radical neo-cons who wish to build an American empire, to the extremist Reaganauts trying to destroy parts of the federal government, to the religious diehards attempting to enforce their morality on everyone.
Whatever their particular motivation, all these right-wing revolutionaries share a sense of mission, a reason to get up in the morning and keep on striving for their perfect world. Like all revolutionaries, their zeal is their source of strength. They can overcome their numerical inferiority by sheer force of will.
By contrast, Democrats have been on the defensive for at least the last twenty years, maybe a lot longer. What is their sense of mission? Why do they get up each morning? Rather than striving for something new, liberals in America are seeking, in ever less convincing terms, to defend what they won in the 1960s. To always be fighting a defensive war such as this is debilitating.
So Bush has his shock troops, particualrly the religious right, who are prepared to knock on doors in the rain or phone voters all day. What does Kerry have by way of counter-balance? Yes, it's true that he can rely on the active support of many Americans who hate Bush, but do any of them actually love Kerry? Republican partisans by contrast, manage to both love Bush and hate Kerry.
And how they hate. The sheer volume of Republican invective directed at Kerry over the last few months has been illuminating. As John McCain could tell you, when it comes to campaigns, the Bushies find no trick to dirty to get their man elected. Some of the abuse hurled at the man from Boston in recent times has even made me feel sorry for him.
If Kerry can overcome his opponent's two inbuilt advantages of money and mission, he can expect more of this invective from the moment he's sworn in as president. The machine which is currently spewing out hatred of him will not go away if Bush is sent back to Texas. Like Clinton, Kerry can expect every failing of his, whether real or imagined, to be blown out of all proportion by the right.
"Conservatives" will just keep plugging away, waiting for the day when one of their kind returns to the White House and they can renew their insurgency afresh.