If Bush's flaws are so blindingly obvious... why is he even in the running?

Great Debates
1

I’ve participated recently in a couple of somewhat contentious threads about aspects of the Bush presidency.

In the past four years, this board has, in the majority, been very vocal about the flaws of the administration: hostile to civil liberties, hostile to gay rights and an opponent of same-sex marriage, hopeless bumblers when it comes to foreign policy, a tool of the religious right and hostile to non-Christians and especially to atheists, hostile to a woman’s right to choose, willing to lie, bribe, and intimidate Congress, insensitive to the environment, in the pocket of big business, and just plain wrong.

Just to drill a bit deeper on one subject: if same-sex marriage were put to a vote of the active posters on this board, I have no doubt it would pass overwhelmingly. Yet in the real world, simialr referendums have met failure by non-trivial margins.

Here’s the question: if you subscribe to the opinions in the second paragraph above, I imagine you’re comforted somewhat by the fact that so many other baord participants share these views. But how do you reconcile the fact that a substantial chunk of the country - perhaps even a majority - doesn’t agree?

If your answer is something along the lines of “The sheeple are easily led,” then I’d ask you to expand on that observation with your proposal for how we should select the President other than some manner of popular vote, if you think the “sheeple” are the problem.

  • Rick
2

By the way – my opinion of Kerry: an honorable man, a war hero, and someone absolutely qualified to become President. The fact that so many people support him is not a mystery to me at all.

I don’t support him because he’s not pro-life, because I believe he would not have taken as quick and forceful military action in Iraq as Bush did, because his judicial appointments are more likely than Bush’s to be fans of substantive due process and less likely to subscribe to strict constructionism. But if you are pro-choice, a fan of substantive due process, and so on - and those are reasonable positions upon which reasonable people may disagree - then support for Kerry is an obvious and rationale choice.

  • Rick
3

“Here’s the question: if you subscribe to the opinions in the second paragraph above, I imagine you’re comforted somewhat by the fact that so many other baord participants share these views. But how do you reconcile the fact that a substantial chunk of the country - perhaps even a majority - doesn’t agree?”

Why does the fact that I believe X need to be reconciled with the fact that a substantial number of people in the country disagree with X? In any political issue that will be true, otherwise there’s no political issue. People are raised with different philosophies, different religions, different attitudes, different logics, and consequently believe different things.

I believe gay marriage should be legal because the government has no business discriminating against a certain class of people just because they make a purely private decision. Other people disagree for various reasons.

  1. Because of their interpretation of certain lines in a certain religious text.

Well I don’t believe in the authenticity of that text, nor in the use of purely religious arguments as basis for government decisions.

  1. Because we’ve never had gay marriage before, we shouldn’t have it now.

That logic doesn’t work for me.

  1. We shouldn’t have gay marriage because gays can’t have children.

First marriage was not designed for the purpose of raising children, though some claim it was. Second, a gay couple can still adopt children, artificial insemination, and so forth.

etc…

4

Bricker, I can respect your political decision even if I disagree with it. You’re an intelligent man whose look at both candidates, made rational decisions about what they would do as President, and are voting for the one who whose platform you prefer.

However, you’re not a typical voter. Unfortunately too many voters, from both sides, will make decisions based on the most foolish of issues. As you put it, I subscribe to the theory that “the sheeple are easily led”.

As to what can be done; I have no idea. Democracy is a good principle and remains better than all other forms of government. But no one has figured out a way to reconcile the principle of everyone having an equal say in governing with the fact that some people are smarter than others.

5

Well, that’s one factor, which is Nixon’s “bigger half” strategy.

You can gain popular support by supporting an issue that may not necessarily be the opinion of a clear majority of PEOPLE, but will get the support of a majority of VOTERS. While it’s just my guess, I would suggest that a great many more people will be actually inclined switch their vote to the candidate opposing gay marriage because they oppose gay marriage, than the reverse. Bush in that specific regard has the advantage of supporting the side that believes God is on their side, so they’re less likely to be apathetic towards voting that way. A good example of this phenomenon is evolution; most people accept that evolution is scientific fact. A small minority refuse to believe it. But that minority is FAR more active and vocal than those who believe in evolution but who for the most part aren’t motivated to go to the trouble of defending it.

But that’s a small issue, really. It may be big on this board but in general I don’t think it’s a decisive issue.

Bush’s popularity, I think, can be explained by four factors:

  1. Bush is likable. He’s folksy and friendly. Kerry is kind of scary looking… he sort of looks like Secretariat, and he’s not very personable. People like friendly and personable candidates.

  2. Some people just reflexively support the Republican Party, and some just reflexively support the Democratic Party. Some people would support George Bush if he launched nuclear weapons at Switzerland, and some would support John Kerry if he turned out to be the kingpin of a child porn ring. You see both characters on this board, able to jump through almost any logical hoop to support their chosen team. So Bush has a base there.

  3. The simple fact is that many voters are ignorant of the facts. A surprising percentage (about a third) of U.S. voters believe that stockpiles of WMDs have been found in Iraq; a shocking number - 22%, according to one poll - believe they were USED IN THE WAR. Half of all Americans believe Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers; half beleive Iraq and Saddam Hussein are directly responsible for 9/11. One quarter of all voters think the preponderance of world opinion supported the war. There is a strong correlation, I believe, between outright ignorance in these matters and the likelihood a person will vote for George Bush. So they may support Bush because they simply do not know these facts, or because they don’t want to accept them. If I thought WMDs had been used in the war I’d vote for Bush too.

According to this poll:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html

So at least at the time this poll was held, people supporting Bush were very likely to simply be ignorant of the pertinent facts. People opposing him were far likelier to actually know the facts.

  1. Americans - don’t take this personally, but I guess you might - tend to vote based on what they’re afraid of. You’re nice, smart folks, but you seem to be inordinately governed by fear. Bush and his team are very, very good at exploiting that; their campaign is based on scaring people and getting people to vote against what they’re scared of. Kerry and his team are not, and in fact aren’t good at running a campaign at all from what I can tell.
6

What’s there for *us * to reconcile? If you start with principles about what the government and its chief executive should and should not do, then it’s hardly a problem to identify which applicant for the job best meets those criteria.

You’ve had it become clear, perhaps painfully for you, elsewhere recently about how your own support for Bush is either not derived from or actually in conflict with the facts in many areas *other * than the few you’ve narrowed your list down to in Post #2 (and not even all of them). Perhaps you could enlighten all of us as to how you’ve managed to “reconcile” the many disparities between your conclusions and the facts, and then perhaps we can generalize that thought process to others. That’s the mystery here - it would help us all to understand how cognitive dissonance *works * than to dismiss it with that name.

7

Because the majority have no right to tyrranize a minority. No “sheeple”. Just my belief that the constitution doesn’t need any more instances wherein a group of citizens are discriminated against.

And while I agree with you that the reasons laid out in your next post are ones that reasonable people can disagree with, those who feel that it is perfectly good and proper to enshrine bigotry are, quite simply, wrong. There is no room to disagree. Not on that.

8

Honestly, Bricker, no freaking clue. It boggles the mind of the average liberal that the election would even be close.
However, a couple of WAGs

Non-trivial number of single issue voters (on Abortion/gay rights or whatever)

War time heightened loyalty/patriotism - don’t change horses midstream

Party loyalty - certainly a non-trivial factor

Lingering distrust of the Dem’s on security issues (i.e. traditional Republican “strengths” are considered especially important for this election)

Personal investment - Bush is my guy - either “in for a penny…” or “anyone who is saying that Bush is an idiot is also saying that I am an idiot for voting for him”

Superior Republican Propoganda - either absolutely or relatively. It is *hard * to read and comprehend the other side’s writings and statements with out bogging down in mute incomprehension or blood curdling rage. At the same time it is very easy to read and agree with “facts” that agree with ones preconceptions.

Inferior Democratic Propoganda position - trying to avoid the least appearance of anthing that could conceivably be warped into a hint of a suggestion of disloyalty. Burned too many times. The more manichean official administration worldview is easy to articulate.

Speaking fluent pubbie, I - the Republicans understand their base in a way the Democrats do not- Democratic efforts to woo traditionally republican or conservative voters may seem ham-handed or lack the appropriate trust.

Speaking fluent pubbie, II - Just as some/many democrats/liberals see the Republican party as having Olympia Snowe (and a few others - good)/John McCain (moderate?!)/Tools, tyrants, and loonies (bad) I don’t know that the average Republican sees the Democratic party as being divided much past Zell (good)/Lieberman (moderate)/leftists, liberals and loonies (evil).

Personal affection/trust for the president. If you trust the President then anything unpleasant the media reports is unlikely to be taken at face value rather than the spun version.

I don’t think I am saying that “pubbies are stupid” but rather that people are human - pretty much all of the above could certainly be spun around at various times - there is symettry (but this time the facts are on our side.

9

I firmly believe that if voting americans were legally compelled to go to message boards like this one to discuss politics for at least 3 hours a week, our voting trends would be much different than they are.

10

SDMB members do not equal the general population. People on the SDMB debate and argue issues, the general public is ignorant on most issues and respond mostly to buzzwords and hot topics.

For example, the idea of nuking Mecca (or Baghdad) is fairly common among the people, especially conservatives. But when mentioned once on SDMB, the idea was shouted down as ridiculous, and no one could seriously defend it.

Most people are very ignorant on politics, Democrats and Republicans alike. Elections are decided on key words, like the economy, war, and terrorism. Sean Hannity has demonstrated this many times by quizzing inner city voters on air.

11

Well, I think that the bulk of your answer lies right here. If the rest of America were like this board, I’d agree that Bush would be out of the running…but, as a number of the “political compass” threads (BTW, thanks for those, SentientMeat) have suggested, this board is significantly further to the left of the American center of politics, and measurably more libertarian than the American center. As a result, proportionately fewer Americans are as “concerned” (I use that term broadly) about the administration’s stances on gay rights, the separation of church and state, environmentalism, abortion, et al. than we here on the Dope. That doesn’t make us Dopers “good” or “bad,” “wrong” or “right.” But it does preclude the majority of us from being Bush-supporters. Barring a significant leftward shift by the administration, I doubt anything that Bush or his allies do in the near future will change that.

And the thing is, I think we on the Dope know and accept that. Nobody ever ordered us to be a perfect cross-section of American (or even world) society. Cecil has never come down from on high and said, “Hey, too many lefties in the pool. Some of youse, haul your butts over to the Nader board.” To look at it from another angle, I don’t look at other folks in my office and think, “Gosh, I’m not conservative enough to fit in here. Maybe I should start changing my views.” I have my politics, you have yours, the secretary has hers. And, off line, we all manage to live without tearing each others’ throats, and that’s how it should be.

So, how do we, as Dopers, reconcile the fact that on the average we are farther to the left than the average American? I think we just do.

12

In addition to the points others have raised, I think there’s an awful lot of Americans who simply like the fact that Bush is “a man of God.” Isn’t there some poll around that says that half of Americans describe themselves as born-again? That’s certainly not me, but I can understand that some people think that a candidate’s religion is of great importance.

And I’m sure those voters love the fact that Bush is trying to make this country into fundamentalist theocracy. (Sorry, just add to add in a whacko jibe at the religous right, there.)

13

Of course you’re right. But I’m not talking about civil disagreement. I disagree with John Kerry, but I understand how reasonable people could reach the opposite conclusion. The people that disagree with support of Bush seem to suggest that no reasonable person could possibly support Bush, and yet so many people do support him that the conclusion that NO reasonable person could seems suspect.

14

Check out this great New Yorker essay on the subject of what makes voters tick. It makes quite a bit of sense, and its conclusions aren’t exactly heartwarming:

The relevance here is that support for either Bush or Kerry may have little or nothing to do with either man’s policies. As a resolutely anti-Bush libbie myself, I think Bush’s only indisputable talent is for being liked, often in spite of holding positions that many people find offensive. He basically got elected (or “elected”) in 2000 by running on his record as the nice governor of Texas that even the Democrats liked. Add the stress and unity that came in the wake of 9/11, and a lot of people are resolutely behind Bush, even though you could poll them about things like Medicare, Social Security, and the environment and find they held attitudes diametrically opposed to Bush’s.

15

There’s another element; I think you can never underestimate the power of some people to rationalize about someone whom they perceive as giving them tax cuts. When push comes to shove, I think that’s what it comes down to for a lot of folks. And, of course, the administration gives them plenty of spin to work their rationalizations with.

16

Well, I disagree with Bush, but I can see how reasonable people could reach the opposite conclusion, too. But, then again, we are reasonable, well-read Dopers, after all :smiley:

I know several folks around here (IRL, I mean), who believe that NO reasonable person could support Kerry. I think outside of talking-shops such as this one, there are a lot of people out there who support the Dems or Pubs in the same way you’d support your family–“my party, right or wrong,” and I think that might explain a lot of it.

17

Why did we need quick and forceful action in Iraq?

I don’t mean to sound like I’m attacking. It really is a blind spot for me when it comes to people who support the Iraq invasion. The only viable explanation I’ve heard is that Saddam was a ruthless dictator and needed to be removed. I’m wondering if there are other, and perhaps stronger, arguments in support of the invasion.

18

Well, I don’t think no reasonable person could. I think that “reasonable” people can depending how you define “reasonable” and how such people weight certain issues. For example,

(1) If you are a power company executive who doesn’t want to spend much money improving emissions controls on your plants or are a timber industry executive who wants to be able to cut down more old-growth trees to maximize profits (at least in the short and medium term) then Bush is your man.

(2) In general, if you are in the top 1% or perhaps top few percent of income earners or of wealth and the economic issues of how much money you get to keep as opposed to pay in taxes is paramount, then Bush is your man.

(3) If you believe that the whole neoconservative philosophy of going into Iraq to remake the Middle East is going to work (and you don’t mind lies or at least deception used in pursuit of policy goals as long as you like the goals), then Bush is your man. (Of course, I have some problems with considering such a person to be very reasonable…But, obviously noone can predict the future with certainty. So, who knows…I could be wrong.)

(4) If you are in the defense industry, then Bush is your man, both in terms of short-term spending and, I would argue (although clearly there would be more disagreement here), long-term amounts of money that will be spent on militarism around the world because of Bush’s policies.

(5) If you are relatively high up in the private health insurance industry or pharmaceutical industry, then Bush is your man.

(6) If you feel the most important issues affecting you and this country are ones of traditional conservative values, in other words, you feel that abortion should be illegal, gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, …, then Bush is your man.

(7) If you are strongly against government spending especially on social programs and feel that the best way to lower it is not to do so directly but to create a fiscal situation that forces a fiscal train wreck down the road (“starve the beast”), then Bush is your man.

19

Surely you’re familiar with that old chestnut: “Democracy* is the worst form of government on Earth…except all the others.”
*And to stave off the nitpick patrol - yes, I know it’s not technically a democracy

20

Bricker, it’s an entirely reasonable question, one that I have posed out loud in tones of exasperation.

By way of answer, as an improvement on “the sheeple are easily led”…

a) The Republican and/or right-wing strategists have succeeded in creating a political coalition between unlikely bedmates: those whose high income or wealth + relatively unenlightened self-interest leads them to support lower taxes and elimination of barriers & restrictions to making money even if it means evisceration of Federal programs and dismantling of protections, on the one hand; and considerably less well-off folks amenable to social politics of an Archie Bunker stripe. The first contingent is a natural ally of the economic politics of the right (and, I should add, when their propositions aren’t destructive of worthwhile Federal programs and/or good environmental &etc. protections, less immediately self-centered people throughout the upper and middle classes tend also to support them); the second bunch of people has been carefully cultivated over the last three decades. The Democrats have been very slow to respond to these huge blocs of socially traditional relatively unwealthy people voting against their economic interests in order to support the imposition of “conservative values” on all citizens; they have been anemic and obtuse in explaining and defending the moral rightness of more of a “live and let live” attitude towards folks with other value systems / personal lives, engaging way too much in a social-liberal snobbishness, i.e., “We are not merely morally right, we are so morally right that we should not ever have to explain or defend social liberalism to any Bible-thumping fag-bashing harlot-deriding anti-choice uptight yokel who is too dense to just see it.” (This board is a very good exception. Political correctness takes a back seat to explaining and defending your precepts.)
b) While I gather that it would come as no surprise to you to see how many of us (Kerry voters and/or people who regard Bush as a disastrous menace) see in the modern Republican Party the embodiment of Big-Brotherly coercion, authoritarianism, social control etc., I think many of us are oblivious to the possibility that thinkers of the economic conservative / socialism-hating variety worry about liberals / Democrats being exactly those same things. I think that has to be part of it: Republicans who believe that, given the opportunity, the Democratic Party will impose all kinds of laws on behalf of that amorphous entity The People, that these will be restrictive laws, laws about what you cannot do, rather than liberating laws, laws that grant freedoms; and that among these will be all sorts and flavors of heavy-duty communist redistributivism, in which anyone with better than poverty-level net worth and income will get shorn and the results redistributed, mostly to the salaries of ever-burgeoning and expanding bureaucrats and other federal employees, the ranks of whom will of course be densely staffed with cronies of the liberal elite. And all of it, in toto, geared towards leveling society: everyone the same, no one gets to be any different or have any choices. (How’m I doing?) This is 97% bullshit, as even under Roosevelt and Johnson that was not the political flavor or behavior of the Democratic Party, which in the US has not been and is not a socialist party. But the Democratic Party, and liberals in general, I think, are largely unconscious that some folks have these worries, which have been resown and fertilized by folks on the right, and I think this perception is a factor — at least to the point that some people who ascribe to your thumbnail description of the horrors of GWB are inclined to wonder if Kerry would be any less of a threat to personal liberty or if it would just take a different form.

c) Miaow