Misreading the National Mood

March 24, 2002

by Christopher G. Adamo

Imagine, if you can, the financial disaster which would rapidly befall any manufacturer of American flags who might be so naive as to presume that their last-quarter profits for 2001 resulted from marketing strategies, successful advertising campaigns, or product improvement programs. Any person of even minimal intelligence is sure to understand that the upsurge in flag sales had nothing whatsoever to do with efforts on the part of the manufacturers, and everything to do with the upsurge in patriotism in the wake of 9-11. To presume otherwise would be arrogant, as well as ignorant. Unfortunately, several segments of American society have made just this sort of mistake, and the negative repercussions of such errors are just as inevitable and severe as they would be for hapless flag producers.

Consider first of all, the relatives of those who died in the attacks. It is true that America poured forth expressions of sympathy and compassion for the suffering and loss the family members experienced. It is also true that Americans voluntarily donated money to the victims’ families totaling well in excess of a billion dollars. To the incredible dismay of the recipients however, those same Americans have since reacted with cynicism and anger to their attempts at lobbying the U.S. government for greater compensatory sums. How can this dichotomy exist? In short, Americans were not merely responding directly to the events of last September, but more specifically to their implications for the nation as a whole. The blatant outrage by the terrorists and their sponsors against the entirety of our great country is a far larger issue in the minds of Americans than even the enormity of the attacks in terms of dollars or lost lives.

One group of individuals who seem unable to grasp this concept (or who perhaps choose to ignore the inconvenient reality of it) are liberal Senatorial Democrats such as Charles Schumer of New York. In a poll taken in the months after the attacks, it was learned that an overwhelming majority of Americans approved, for the first time in many years, of growth in the purpose and scope of government. According to Schumer, such polling data constituted clear evidence that Americans finally recognize the legitimacy of the nanny state. Again, the truth was vastly different. For the first time in the memory of many Americans, government appeared to be chiefly occupied with the performance of a duty prescribed to it by the Constitution - providing for the common defense. It was this aspect of the expanded role of government to which Americans were, by and large, giving their nod of approval. In a manner which is entirely predictable however, Democrats can be counted upon to press forward with their agenda, consisting of every conceivable social program, in the hopes that they can implement such things while claiming to be giving the public what it wants.

By far the most disturbing example of those who misconstrue the actualities driving public opinion is President George W. Bush himself. Ever since the attacks, his approval rating has remained in the regions which can only be described as “stratospheric.” Unfortunately, his consistently disastrous domestic agenda shows all too plainly that he, like so many others, believes the rallying of the public with their president to be all about himself. In the horror and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the attacks, America looked to those in authority for strength and resolve. At least in the area of his stated response to the attackers, George Bush appeared to embody these things. But the degree to which Americans stood in support of their president spoke of their commitment to confront those forces which had declared war on America and not of any blind allegiance to George W. Bush the person.

In recent weeks, it has become painfully obvious that the president doesn’t clearly comprehend the mood of the nation, and simply presumes himself to be universally popular. Worse yet, he appears to have embarked on an irresponsible and dangerous course, the only explanation for which might be some vain attempt to solidify that popularity. From the miserably ineffectual symbolism of airport “security” legislation to the unrestrained bumbling of Secretary of State Colin Powell, the direction of this administration, excepting the actual military action in Afghanistan, has been one of pandering, compromise, and the complete abandonment of principle. As America moves beyond the emotional upheaval of 9-11 and focuses once again on the specifics of national policy, an enormous backlash may be in store for the Bush Administration.

For all those, who find themselves in a position to act in the best interests of our country in its time of need, but who instead perceive the situation as an opportunity to benefit themselves, the message ought to be repeated frequently and loudly: It isn’t about pity for individual citizens, no matter how deplorable their plight. It isn’t about arriving at some intangible universal "consensus" between the irreconcilable forces of left and right, good and evil, or right and wrong. It isn’t about the granting of unlimited power or unconditional approval to any one individual, in order that he might collaborate with those who would destroy the integrity of the country’s borders or trash its Constitution. It’s about the security, the well being, and the very future of that country. It’s about America.

_________________________________________

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer who lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been involved in grassroots political activity for many years. Chris was the editor of the Wyoming Christian from 1994 to 1996, and his columns can also been seen at CheyenneNetwork.com.

Send the author an E mail at Adamo@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of Christopher's articles, visit his archives.