[Ed. note: This post is a counterpoint to John Callender’s “Why Bush Will Lose” post on lies.com.]
Why Bush Will Win
One word: fear.
Ever since the transformative event of 9/11, the Bush administration has been scarily good at exploiting the fear of a freaked-out nation, a nation that had never before felt threatened within its own borders. They’ve pushed through a far-right agenda that would have been laughed off the stage at any other time in American history. Terror alerts, demonization of Saddam, “with us or against us,” crackdown on civil rights, xenophobia – is this the most fear-based administration ever?
So why should the Bushies abandon the tactic that has gotten them where they are today? If anything, fear works better in the soundbite world of an election year than it does during the rest of the term. They don’t have an actual record to run on, as John Callender pointed out in his post. (I discussed their absymal record in my “You sir are not objective” post from last week.) But fear isn’t logical. Fear doesn’t need to debate. Fear, if it’s strong enough, always trumps reason. Thus it’s perfect for Bush and Co.
Here’s some sample fear-based election-year rhetoric (it’s not difficult to come up with):
-The other guy doesn’t care about your security!
-The other guy would like to see Saddam in power!
-The other guy wants to let other countries tell us what to do!
-The other guy wants to raise your taxes!
-The other guy has some wacko liberal social agenda!
-The other guy wants to dismantle marriage!
-The other guy doesn’t respect your religion!
-Do you really want to change the Commander in Chief at this terrible time?
-Has there been another attack since 9/11? No. I’m the only one who can protect you.
The Bush Administration is so fear-based, it should be called the Hindbrain Administration. And when the hindbrain kicks in, it takes a lot for the forebrain to take control back.
I’ve been calling this a “hindbrain” administration for three years. Only, replace the word “brain” with “head”, and the word “hind” with “butt”.
I confess to being really curious as to which picture of the American public will emerge come November. Will we choose the guy who is all sleek packaging and fear-mongering and no real substance? Or will we see through his transparent tissue of self-serving lies and kick him out?
The thing with appealing to fear is that people forget to be afraid after a while. Bush needs a way to remind people of 9/11 to play that card. But he can’t really have another attack on US soil without achieving a third-strike national security failure (to go with 9/11 and the Iraq WMD bungling). So how does he remind the cattle that they really ought to be afraid? I don’t really know.
John: I agree with you that people forget to be afraid – wonderfully put. The question is, is the fear hangover cleared up or not? The Republican convention will be in September in New York, purposely in the shadow of the downed Twin Towers. I hope that gambit backfires on them spectacularly. But it could also pay off big. And don’t forget they have Tom Ridge and color-coded fear alerts to keep people off balance. “Terrorists want to rip your grandma’s heart out and eat it! See you at the mall!”
“May you live in interesting times” is a curse, indeed.
You should replace the title with, “Why a Dorky Centrist Establishmentarian Money-Grubbing Poll-Sucking Political Whore Will Win” and forget being specific with the party.
Adam, I’ve been thinking about that earlier thread — the one about whether Bush is a failure by “objective measures” — and I think maybe a better way to frame the facts you listed is to ask not whether they violate “objective” standards of good rule, but whether Bush has violated even the values of his own party.
Many conservatives are unhappy about Bush’s huge spending (and while it’s unlikely they will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, they might vote Libertarian, or it might be tougher for the Republicans to turn out the vote). And then there’s the controversy over Kay’s report. It’s going to be a weird election year — with Dems running on fiscal responsibility and better (non-inept) national security.
If Kerry’s the nominee, it’s also going to be weird to see veterans identifying more with a Democrat than a Republican — as for whether he can win, I have some (small) hopes. Any time a rival Republican has questioned Kerry on national defense or patriotism, the veterans have rallied around him and won him the race. They might even think he’s too liberal, but a lot of vets want to see a vet in the White House. We’ll see.
it’s unbelievable that any Americans would bvote for this guy that has stolen the national treasury and gone to war with other people’s lies all because of hi Daddy. He is going to be history vey soon, or this country is going to civil war.