So it looks like the US election is going to Bush.
Even though it hurt me deeply, there was a part of me that could understand the Australian election. Howard may be a fuckwit, but it's still hard to get rid of a government with a good economic record, and deservedly or not it's on that record he swung the voters.
Bush, on the other hand... I simply can't understand how a rational human being would vote for Bush:
- He's presided over a record budget deficit, so any claim for economic credibilty is shot
- He's failed utterly at the war on terror: placing rhetoric over action at every step, and sowing careful misinformation to redirect the real threat of Al Quaeda to the invented threat of Iraq
- Even if you agree with the invasion of Iraq despite the constant flip-flopping on why it's happening, the Bush administration has run the war incompetently, constantly pushing for some kind of “quick victory” at the expense of the safety of both Iraqi civilians and US troops.
- He's presided over a constant and brutal attack on civil liberties and individual rights
- He's presided over the most blatantly dishonest US government on record: even Nixon aides have come out to say "Hey, we weren't as bad as this."
I simply don't understand how anyone in their right mind could vote for Bush. I'm sure a lot of really smart, rational human beings have done so, but I just don't understand the degree of self-deception that has to go on to say "Hey, this lunatic is a good thing for the future of our country."
I have been living in the states now for quite a while (since before the 2000 election) and know (and like) quite a few Bush supporters. I would say that the majority of them refuse to spend five minutes actually thinking about issues. Instead they will, when asked, say things like Bush is steadfast or he is a strong leader or some other crap that the pundits on CNN have allowed GOP spokespeople spout.
There are a couple of serious thinkers on the right (that I know) who are really well educated and know what is going on but they are soooo feckin greedy that they choose to screw over everyone else because of their personal financial agendas.
The scary part is that the media is between a rock and a hard place in this country. If they really started being honest and tried to educate people they will loose ratings and worse advertising revenues. So you end up in a situation where a lot of the population build thier political philosophies around a few deliberately misleading sound bytes from CNN or wherever.
The best I can come up with this morning, is that, apparently, you can fool enough of the people every four years.
But you just don't understand....
Freedom is on the March.
We have turned the corner.
They hate us for our freedom.
They will greet us with flowers in the street.
John Kerry will get us nuked because he can admit he was wrong on occasion.
"Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy and it is a simple matter to drag the people along... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
- Hermann Goering, 1936
I agree with "Irish in America." Most of the Bush voters whom I know have picked up on either the image projection (strong! safe! hates gays and abortion!) or the tax cuts (money!) and simply couldn't be bothered to spend a few minutes thinking about issues. That's just the way *most* people are *most of the time*, and hoping for them to act differently is idealistic at best. Clinton won on charisma, Bush won on charisma, Bush Sr. won on a lack of charisma on his opponent's part, Reagan won on charisma. Carter is before my time, can't say much about that.
In addition to what Charles mentions, what disgusts me most about it is that it is such a clear indication that around half of the voters in this country hate the rest of the world.
I hear exit polls indicate that 'morality' was the most popular issue among voters. My girlfriend spoke to her recently evangelist christian parents on election night and encountered exactly that argument. I guess persecution and opression in the name of God are simply more important than deception and mass murder in the name of peace.
I can't, for the life of me, reconcile how anybody can vote for Bush either. Then it strikes me it seems only a certain breed of people can - Americans. I was watching the coverage on teevee when they released some numbers regarding what issues the people were most concernerned about - a solid number said "Morality". Outsourcing and terrorism had single digits compared to Morality's 21%.
I remember thinking, that is so screwed up.
A month ago, I got into an interesting debate with an American while trying to sell him a PowerBook. He tried to convince me the republican party wasn't so bad, and the crux of his argument was: Strong! Safe! Anyone not with Bush hates America! Osama wants Kerry to win! The Dems will turn this freedom loving country into a fascist, totalitarian state!
That just borders on insanity.
I am a rational human being. I certainly understand your position, so I'll attempt to explain mine.
"economic credibility" --> Bush inherited a declining economy, and his policies in my opinion after 9/11 turned a potentially devastating recession into a moderate one. This necessitated a larger deficit. Apart from the deficit/recession issue, I agree that Bush was no spendthrift, and I certainly hope that practice, and some unexplainable protectionist gaffes, does not continue.
"placing rhetoric over action" --> huh? Bush prefers rhetoric to action? Now that comment I *don't* understand. I would think Bush's biggest failing is that he's all action and no think.
"on why it's happening" --> I agree. Bush does not seem to be able to stand in front of a pulpit and make a persuasive case for action in Iraq. But that doesn't mean a persuasive case for action does not exist, and so I forgive the bumbling orator. I simply tune him out and listen to Tony Blair, who *is* a good orator, and does make a persuasive case.
"constant and brutal attack on civil liberties" --> That's just plain b.s. Should we get rid of John Ashcroft? Yes. I hope Bush does.
"blatantly dishonest" --> this is the argument I truly *do not understand*. Bush lied! Bush lied! Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. *Everyone*. And everyone was surprised when we didn't find it. How is that a lie?
Long and short, I voted Bush because Kerry did not offer any appealing alternatives. "Anyone but Bush" is not a compelling argument, despite what Europe might think.
Anyway, enjoy your blog.
I don't understand at all either. I suspect they're all ramen or varelse:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/deus_x/218239.html#cutid1
It's very easy to see why Bush won. Completely irrespective of the qualities of the men themselves, look at the campaigns they ran. Bush's campaign appealed to the more basic human instincts; fear, distrust. Emotion rather than reason. Whereas Kerry positioned himself on the opposite side. Kerry said "These are complex issues with no easy answers." Bush said, "My opponent can't make up his mind and is weak."
I'm sure there are intelligent people who had good reasons for voting for Bush, but national elections are won with the hearts and minds of the public, which frankly when considered en masse (in all countries, not just the US), rarely reasons things out to their logical conclusions (particularly bombarded by extremist propaganda on both sides).
The democrats would be wise to remember this race; people don't want to hear about the complexity of issues, they want to hear simple answers to simple solutions. Appeal to their faith, appeal to their fear, and appeal to the morals of the majority of registered voters and you'll win just about any election.
I woke up this morning, checked the news and then wished I could go back to sleep for 4 more years. Crikey is my finger not on the pulse of America.
> "Anyone but Bush" is not a compelling argument, despite what Europe might think.
Why the focus on Europe? I think you'll find there are significant pockets *all over the world* blown away by what happened in the US today.
I voted for Kerry, but I still hate the rest of the world. There's this idea that just because other people do things differently then us, or have been doing them longer, then it's automatically better. Even though looking at different cultures everyone does something contradictory to another culture. I don't think we should be completely oblivious to everyone else but I swear to God, the next time someone from Europe at my university starts preaching to me about how much better Europe is than America, I'm going to knock him out, ask him why he's in America then, and ask him who the freakin Superpower is. I still hate Bush because he always comes off as childish to me, but then again most people come off that way.
Well, I think that last comment pretty much sums up some of what is wrong with the US. If we are to believe Phil L., the US is better purely because they're 'the freakin Superpower' and if you don't like it, they'll take you out and then kick you out. And if you still don't like it they'll come over to your country and stamp on you until you agree with them.
But I do agree with him on one point. Just because a country does things differently to the rest of the world doesn't mean that its automatically better. Just remember though, that that includes anything that the US does.
Interesting - I'm just as incredulous as you that the US re-elected Bush, but I seem to be on the other side of the fence when it comes to John Howard. You really wanted Simon Crean in charge of the economy?!
I guess being on the other side of Australian politics to you gives me some perspective on how intelligent people could elect and re-elect GWB.
Ben, no intended focus wholly on Europe -- just a good example of "the significant pockets blown away." (Um, no pun intended.)
2 additional points:
#1) Phil L. Pull your head out, man. I am truly embarrassed by fellow americans who say "I HATE the rest of the world." Umm... they're the ones who are biased?
#2) It's interesting that everyone, regardless of the side, uses the phrase "I don't understand" about the other. And I'll be honest, I don't understand. I do understand why one can dislike Bush. But why the (at least to me) blown-out-of-proportion "Bush must be stopped" / Bush is Hitler / The end of the world mentality? He invaded Afghanistan; everyone was behind that, for the most part. Iraq has flipped off the world for the last 10 years, so we decide to make good on our threat. WMD is *one* of the compelling arguments that of course becomes the rallying cry by the media (and thus, by the Bush presidency) because it's an easy argument to explain. Sure, everyone doesn't have to like these moves, in fact, you can hate them, but to call them lunacy is stretching it, in my opinion.
POLITICAL CAPITAL
In an interview aired today on CNN (I saw it this afternoon and just now), W said, "I earned capital in the campaign -- political capital -- and now I plan to spend it."
This lends some credence to this...
"HOUSTON -- Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."
from here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
Looks to me like W was planning on going to war, any war, in 1999. I guess the Republicans are right, W does what he says he's gonna' do.
Trent wrote:
"""
"blatantly dishonest" --> this is the argument I truly *do not understand*. Bush lied! Bush lied! Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. *Everyone*. And everyone was surprised when we didn't find it. How is that a lie?
"""
Because not everybody thought Iraq had WMDs. The people who were in a position to know these things - weapons inspectors and intelligence analysts - did not find evidence of WMDs. The public thought Iraq had WMDs because the President told us so, and we trusted him.
As the truth about who said what to whom in 2002 comes out, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Bush was dishonest somewhere in the process of determining whether Iraq had WMDs. Maybe he was dishonest with the people his is supposed to represent, maybe he was dishonest with himself or maybe he was dishonest about his competency to make important judgements - anyway I look at it, this man has not made a good president.
But what do I know? I'm all naive and nuanced.
I searched Lycos for information on buying a couch and stumbled on this fascinating blog. (Nice pic of you on the new sofa, by the way).
As someone who worked with MoveOn to support John Kerry's campaign, I was disappointed/devastated/despondent over the results of the election. I loved the UK Mirror's cover, "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?" (with a picture of W. waving) because it perfectly reflected how I felt. At least one of your responders got it right: Kerry never succeeded in making the emotional connection to the voters. I read an interesting article that suggested that Kerry's lack of humor wrecked his chances; Bush made people laugh. (I was laughing at him, but I guess that doesn't count.)
Anyway, it's late here in the States and I just wanted to write and point out that 56,158,908 of us Americans aren't selfish, unaware bastards. We have joked about seceding (if only all the blue states were contiguous!) Have patience. Find an American penpal and send him links to media from outside the U.S. because all of our media panders to the administration. Don't give up on us, because 48% of us are definitely worth it ;-) and the other 52% if they can stop feeling afraid.