Lots of people say they don't support Bush now, including lots of people who voted for the guy. I'm sure many of them are genuine and almost surely won't change their mind between now and the election. But I think a lot of people are saying they are against Bush just because it's cool to be against the current mess right now. People are embarrassed to share some of the responsibility for the huge mess we're in.
I think a lot of people who say in polls that they won't vote for Bush may change their tune. Why? Lots of reasons. First, there may be another terrorist attack on us between now and the election. Keep in mind that a big Bush talking point right now is that the lack of terrorist attacks on America since 9/11 "proves" that Bush is keeping us safe. So naturally, if we are attacked, Bush-supporters will fall all over themselves apologizing for being wrong.
Right? Ha.
No. Instead, they will say that the attack underscores the desperation of the terrorists. Bush has them on the ropes, they'll say (remember the spin on bombings in Iraq a few months ago?). We can't change leadership in the middle of a war on terror, they'll say. Voting against Bush means that the terrorists win, they'll say (remember Spain?). Hell, if the attack occurs close enough to November, they might even suspend elections.
I've thought about this before, and the scary thing is that it is plausible. And you may think it is beyond the pale, but ask yourself, which "conservative" media personality is going to stand up and oppose such a thing? Which Republican congressperson is going to stand up and say we should hold elections? And I think a lot of people who are going with the flow and saying they don't like Bush right now will fall right into line like good Morons and agree with whatever Bush says is best for the country if it gets right down to it.
I also think that Bush will sow enough uncertainty in the minds of voters to make it close enough for Bush to pull it out, and the media will help. How many people think John Kerry is a rich "patrician" who is out of touch (Bush is plenty wealthy and his "upkeep" is incredibly expensive ... remember the $2000 suits)? How many think John Kerry is a "flip-flopper"? The Center for American Progress has extensively documented a lot of serious flip-flops for Bush, so the facts are out there if anyone wants them. Hell, we knew about Bush flip-flops before the 2000 election (e.g. all the Texas legislation he fought against to the very end, then claimed credit for), and they were reported (see Molly Ivins' book), but no one cared.
But I hear a lot of "former" Bush-supporters saying, "Oh, I don't know if I can support John Kerry. He sure flip-flops a lot, etc." I see it entering the common lingo of cartoonists, columnists, etc. that Kerry is a flip-flopper (just like the old "Gore is an exaggerator" meme that the mainstream media propagated without Bush's help a few years ago). That tells me that a lot of people are just saying they don't like Bush because it's cool not to like him right now, and that makes me distrust their dedication to change. Because their change isn't based on actual facts, research, critical thinking.
It is based on what the current media message is (and the war dominates that message, which is what Bush originally wanted coming into the election but now maybe doesn't seem like such a good idea to them). As the election gets closer, that message will change, and so I don't really care right now that Kerry is ahead in some polls. Without fundamental positive changes in the media, our country will continue to operate under the risk that its leadership will not be chosen on merit.
Our leaders have never been purely chosen on merit (or in some cases, even mostly chosen on merit), but today we are further from that ideal than we ever have been, and we have the media to thank for it. So I hope you'll excuse my pessimism. I think maybe I'll go back to more book reviews.
Posted by Observer at May 26, 2004 08:07 AMComments on entries can only be made in pop-up windows while those entries are still on the main index page. Sorry for the inconvenience this causes, but this blocks about 99.99% of the spam the blog receives.
To me the problem is not so much Bush or the media. I believe the problem is the wall of money from big business that is corrupting our democratic process and influencing the president and congress to respresent corporate interests over the interests of the American people. I don't like Bush anymore than the next guy, but looked at this way, defeating Bush does not resolve the underlying flaws in a system that allowed a C- student from Yale to become president of the United States in the first place. If we don't have some kind of meaningful campaign finance reform, the next elected official and all that come after will be beholden to the powerful interest groups that put them in office.
Posted by: Higgs Boson on May 26, 2004 12:17 PMIt doesn't really matter what I think, because there is no way my state is going to vote for Bush.
Posted by: Humbaba on May 26, 2004 12:53 PMTrust me, Humbaba. We live in a solidly red state, so my vote doesn't count either. I am damn well going to vote anyway, if they deign to hold an election.
Posted by: Observer on May 26, 2004 04:02 PMI agree that getting rid of the electoral college (or at least the winner-take-all allocation systems) would be even better than getting rid of Bush. Going to a system with a run-off between the top 2 finishers would be nice, too.
I've experienced 2 postponed elections, both primaries: the one right after Hurricane Andrew in Miami and the one that was going on Sept. 11 here. In both cases, the general analysis was that the distraction caused by the disaster caused more disruption than the political implications of the disaster--that is, people more profoundly affected didn't get to vote, but people who did vote didn't change their minds.
Posted by: Shamhat on May 26, 2004 04:05 PMYou know, Observer, I have a topic for you that pops into my mind after todays news about the "credible threat" against a US target this summer.
Limbaugh and his dittohead buddies make a very big deal about Democrats relying on bad news to get elected - bad economy, bad war, bad whatever. Well, I think it's the same for Republicans. They rely on the threat (and fear) of terrorism so they can say how much they are doing to stop it. So now we'll get a slew of reports about "credible" threats that are just like the vague threats we knew about before 9/11. But this time if nothing happens they can say "This time we told you about it, and look! We stopped it!"
Posted by: Perkusi on May 26, 2004 04:46 PMWell, obviously, when Bush-supporters accuse liberals of wishing for failure, they are projecting their own ideals onto liberals. Many prominent Republicans are *ON THE RECORD* wishing failure for Clinton in Bosnia when we tried to help clean that mess up. Similarly with Clinton's tax plan that they thought would ruin the economy. Part of that was motivated by politics, but most of it was motivated by pure hatred. They hated Clinton, and they didn't care what happened as long as it got him out of power.
With this war, I don't know of any liberals (certainly no one in the Democratic leadership) who are expressing a desire that things go badly for America. Conservatives *say* that liberals are hoping for things to go bad, but again, they're just projecting their own nastiness. Theirs is the philosophy that puts tax cuts, industry loopholes and religious bullshit ahead of anything and everything that makes our country great.
As for fear, of course that's the strategy. Keep everyone in fear, keep up the war footing, the talk of war, the talk of vague threats, etc. With fear, you can then use the patriotism stick to keep the media in line (i.e. "it is unpatriotic to criticize the president during time of war"). It's classic fascism (or corporate statism, if you want to avoid the fascism word). Art Silber (an avowed libertarian) over at "The Light of Reason" is all over this stuff. I should probably quote him more.
Posted by: Observer on May 26, 2004 09:48 PM
Just wanted to wish you a very happy birthday.
Hope you and Fel have fun tomorrow.Enjoy the break
Thanks! It's been a busy pre-birthday today. Cody's team had a final pizza party this evening, and Michelle has been out all day shopping for yours truly, then to come home and have to clean (hey, we helped ... uh ... some) since my parents are coming tomorrow, then to go out shopping *again* tonight. Poor girl.
I'm glad a got some last night, because I don't think I would have a prayer tonight. :)
Posted by: Observer on May 26, 2004 10:38 PM