Why do Americans like Bush and vote for him.

Remove all ads!

Interesting article by Spengler:

While I don't agree with him everywhere, just take his obsessions with civilisational war and especially 'fertility' (He isn't named 'Spengler' for no reason ... ... IMO that man needs to get laid, and quickly, but then - isn't it that sublimation according to Freud is the driving force of all creativity, constructive and destructive? Hmm, I think I just lost myself ... ), he makes some very good points.

[ January 25, 2005, 18:33: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Spengler does make good points of why so many Americans voted for Bush. I was born in 'middle American'; left there when I was 21 (which was quite a while ago). However my family was not typical but that's another story.

Thank you, Ragusa, for posting this. Little by little I am coming to understand my own country.

 

From what I have heard, only Bill Clinton and some other democrates have managed to actually rise the general well-being when it comes to demographs, so Bush isn't exactly anything new... The problem is that it isn't HIM who will clear the mess, but the one who is the next president. Poor fellow...

Spengler's article was quite creative, I have to admit, but I wouldn't be so sure if it can be explained with simple "elite vs. common people" setup. Since elite is usually only a minority, it must mean that a lot of the "common people" also voted for him, so by that aspect the argument isn't completely valid, but... Well, basically he stated that Bush represent the majority of americans more fittingly than Kerry does, so this leads to that typical generilization that certainly-has-come-out-several-times.

Now that's just about spooking people.

 

BTA,

off topic too BTA but I was entirely aware of this, I just didn't really find a better formulation when I wrote my post

My point was simply that Oswald Spengler, name patron for this columnist, wrote this book named 'The Decline of the West' - which is simply put programmatic for Spengler the columnist. Add Huntington's 'Clash of the Cultures' (which I wholeheartedly disagree with) and you have Spenglers worldview.

I, however, very much enjoy reading Spengler. He's IMO one of the best online columnist atm and an astute observer.

 

It wouldnt be totally amiss if we got someone who actually liked and voted for Bush to post here and tell us why s/he likes Bush II. All we Bush bashers can do is speculate.

 

Yep, well, making informed guesses, that is..

 

My informed guess would be : Ignorance

 

Well, it was entertaining. But there was very little that I agreed with, or found enlightening in it about those who voted for Bush.

 

Something that puzzles me - there's an assumption in many places that the people who vote for Bush do so because of a lack of cultural diversity, intellect, education, or any number of other things.

Contrary to seemingly popular opinion, some people come to a support of the man through theory, intelligence, analysis, and belief. Propaganda plays a large role in it, but there is a significant minority of the Republican party that feels the way it does through study and contemplation. Both parties get the great majority of their votes from people who vote the party lines of their parents without a thought, though, so I won't imply that it's anything greater than a minority.

Often, the logic of this minority is flawed, but the same applies to the logic of the minority of the opposite party that have actually given significant thought and consideration to their beliefs.

The vote sometimes, though, is not really a measure of respect or positive feeling for the man the the vote is cast for, but a negative reaction to the other person. One feels that they have to cast their vote against the offender (which is where, I personally believe, a good half of the votes for both parties came from this last election.)

In relation to Bush, personally, one can't discount his charisma. His lack of perfect grammar and enunciation isn't as abhorrent to the voting population as it is to some others. It, in fact, is charming - he has the "down-home" (or whatever it's called) charm that so many politicians lack. Kerry had little, if any, charm. Bush comes across as sincere, serious, dedicated, and courageous, all of which are traits that the American people are in favor of. People want someone who won't lie to the people bold-faced, especially after Clinton's debacle with Lewinsky. (I, personally, feel that he didn't lie about the WMD's - he was wrong, but he thought that what he was saying was true at the time.)

 

Exactly. And that's what I found wrong with the article. I think one would find that there is a pretty even split between white-collar and blue-collar workers. A lot of working people don't like Bush, while there are many well-educated white-collar workers who support him.

IMO, King George II is one of the worst presidents America has ever had. Where he has courage, he is reckless; while he comes across as sincere, he is surrounded by the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice - all of whom fail to come across as sincere. However, Colin Powell appeared an exception, and a man of both honor and personal integrity. As for Bush himself, he can appear sincere because he has so many politcal party animals to do his dirty work for him. And while Bush is dedicated, he is grossly incompetent; a great blunderer, and not willing to even reconsider his own mistakes. But worst of all, IMO, he has accomplished nothing worthwhile for the American people in four years.

Slith - This is in no way an attempt to belittle your own opinion of Bush, which appears very favorable. This is my honest and heartfelt opinion of a very dangerous person who is at the helm of a great nation, and may very well do damage to it that may take decades to restore to its previously excellent condition.

George II owes everything he has ever gotten as a result of his family heritage. He has succeeded at scant little during his adult life. Yet, he is president on the strentgh of his family's connections and - as you point out- John Kerry's "appearance" of a lack of sincerity, charisma amd charm. But I will certainly take intelligence, competence and a broadminded, tolerant vision of what America should be, over "charisma" and "charm" anyday. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but an independent and I can vote for a superior candidate from either party - but this guy....

 

Thank GOD someone else (Sith) brought up the point on assumptions.

As a "red state" voter, I have taken some offense at the notion that people who voted for Bush were either, uneducated, uninformed, ignorant, or just plain crazy.

I'm from South Carolina. The birth place of the American Civil War, and a great example of a "red state". I went to Boarding school in New England, and have a B/S in Business administration, Own my own Corporation, which in turn controls two small businesses. I'm well read. Fairly well traveled (I've traveled to over 30 countries). And yet, I voted for George Bush.

Why? Why would I vote for such man, that apparently some members of this board (and no...no one in particular) think of as the next Hitler?

Easy answer, in my opinion he was the best of two poor candidates for President of the United States.

Now look, eventhough I am a registered republican, I'm NOT some right wing idiot. I'm Pro-choice, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-US Drug policy. Pro-Afgan war, Pro-Iraq war. I've never voted along party lines.

 

Now that we have a real live Bush voter here, what made you come to the conclusion that you thought George was the better choice? I am not asking for you to explain yourself or justify your actions I am just sincerely interested in the reasons and reasoning.

As a side note, how come even republicans call people right-wing idiots? Is it the same, but reverse, phenomena which made liberal a dirty word in the US?

 

Chandos - My opinion of Bush isn't all that favorable - he's not a great president, I just feel like his good qualities were sometimes cemented over by the great idiocies he is capable of. I, however, would have had to vote for him in the last election, simply because, as Llandon says, he was the best choice of the two.

The problem with the current presidential races (well, one of them) is that they're almost totally based upon appearance. For instance, take the Nixon/Kennedy debate back in '68 (iirc) - it was one of the most deciding factors in the presidential race then. Kennedy looked better, whereas the cameras showed Nixon in a bad light (five o' clock shadow, and such). The debate went very well for him, but the public threw themselves behind Kennedy. Why? Because he looked better.The public rarely looks beyond the appearance of a person, and Kerry looked bad in many respects. The reason I would select Bush is because Kerry never said what he was going to do with the country after his election. If he had presented a consistent, coherent message, lacking in the buzzwords he seemed to love, I may have been compelled to consider him more seriously.

 

That's where you are wrong Chandos. Bush got where he is because the majority of the people like and trust him. Most Americans, in the red counties that is, don't give a damn about family connections.

 

khazadman -- you've hit the nail on its head. Of course, there is money in the politics, and a lot of it goes into politics in order to fund campaigns, etc. Getting through to people, in order to get them to like and trust you requires money.

Want a recipe for getting a Liberal president in USA? Ban campaigns of Asses and Elephants. And give a lot of airtime to Liberals. People will vote for them because they know them.

It's like in Dune. Duke Leto Atreides, upon arrival on Arrakis, made setting up propaganda corps one of his top priorities. "(...) The people must learn how well I govern them. How would they know if we didn't tell them?"

Regardless of what anyone says, Bush is a good leader. He has what marks a strong, charismatic person. He's not Reagan, true, but he is a strong leader, and a man of his times. Looking at the world today, you can either pump a lot of money into giving in when terrorists demand something -- and still get attacked, or you can pump a lot of money into fighting with them -- and still get attacked, but you can still try and remove at least some of the sources of them instead of nourishing them.

 

Why do Americans like Bush and vote for him? Several reasons probably, there are a few I can think of, at the moment.
Well, the people in the economical elite. But that's really minority. In the United States, many citizens vote for a certain person without knowing too much about him or her.
Why the most of black citizens preferred Kerry, in spite of the fact that most of them are religious and -- as we know -- Kerry had some statements supporting abortion...? Because lots of people are lack of proper information, and they don't think on the voting too much (do not hesitate too much when making a decision).
I think that the case can be similar in case of Bush. Many people are uneducated, and might not make a sober decision when voting.

 

That's why I am an advocate of centrally printed political party/candidates programmes supplied to all local voting centres and outlining all the key aspects of the programme, as well as the party's (or specific candidate's) standing on key issues, and the full statement from the party itself/candidate himself. Perhaps also tables compiled with the key issues and standings to compare the parties.

Since elections come once in a longer while, I believe people would take their time to read the postings and that would definitely help in making informed decisions.

 

Well, this is interesting, because in the first instance, George II really was appointed by his cronies on the Supreme Court: We're talking Anton Scalia, baby! Oh yes, I know, George may have won regardless. But we will never know because the Supreme Court of Fools called off the recount. True, there was enough fear and loathing on both sides of the recount issue; neverthelesss, the process should have been followed to a conclusion, for the sake of integrity.

True enough, in the LAST election he won fair and square; no one can argue that point. But the point has been made that Kerry was not a very good candidate. I know, Toughluck, that you think he is a leader and all. And I respect that, seriously (if you are a conservative, he's just dandy). However, for reasons I'm sure you can guess, he is not my leader, as I expect more than it appears George II is capable of accomplishing at this point in his "career."