Why do Americans like Bush and vote for him.

Remove all ads!

The above question has been raised and I am going to stick my neck out and start this topic.

The problem is that I can't address the issue of why people like him, adore him, think he is the next best thing to God. I, a birthright citizen of the USA, would love to know why.

I don't like him and did not vote for him.

To me the real question is why did so many people vote for him. Most of the people I know don't like Bush.

I do have an opinion on why people voted for him. The USA is still primarily a middle class, family oriented country. I know a lot of Europeans might not beleive this. But please remember that News reports what will get people's attention not necessarily what the majority believe.

Kerry was too far to the left, ran a poor campaign and became identified with the Gay Marriage issue.

This means that people who do not care for Bush but not hate him voted for him. It does not mean that they blindly follow him or agree with everything he does or says.

 

I think this is an issue you will see in a lot of other Western countries as well. It's often the case that people don't like who they're voting for, but they see it as the preferable option between unpalatable alternatives.

Tony Blair, I imagine, is in the same spot: people don't like him, but the Tories are hardly a better option. Same deal with John Howard in Australia; the opposition is a basket-case and I voted for them not because they represent me, but because they were the only alternative. You only have to look at the old Alley posts about the election to see people's sentiments about Kerry - a lot of people just wanted anything but the Republicans, and since Kerry was the Democrat candidate, he got their support. If support for Kerry and the Democrats was based on them, not their opponents, the party probably wouldn't be such a mess right now.

To put it another way: imagine you're neck-deep in cat vomit and unable to escape. If someone threw a bucket of cow manure at you, would you duck?

Kerry didn't seem too leftist to me - he almost seemed a centrist, which is probably too far to the left anyway. He offended the religious right by appearing to compromise Catholic doctrine for secular freedoms, especially abortion, while proclaiming himself a devout Catholic. His voting record on the war was scrutinised and got him branded a "flip-flopper" when he opposed it - these actions may have cost him the election. Also, the Republicans managed to link him to the French somehow... and people bought into that to a degree... but that's another story.

 

I can understanding voting for Bush to keep Kerry out of the White House. Myself, I agree with Bush on things like abortion and marriage. Probably on a lot of moral and ethical issues, as well. I can understand how people could approve of his economic ideas, sure. I can even understand why people may approve of his foreign policy. What I can't understand is when people excuse his lying.

 

I would suggest people voted for him because they had to vote for someone . They probably wanted to vote for Tom Hanks or Jay Leno but they weren't available.

Bush's votes would have been made up of his hardcore supporters (all those weirdoes who turn up to rallies and cheer fanatically) plus some people who didn't like Kerry, plus some other people who didn't like anybody but felt they had to vote so as to do their public duty, plus some people who made a mistake on their ballot forms.

 

Chevy, all presidents lie. We take that for granted. In fact we take it for granted that all politians lie. AFAIK the only honest presidents were Lincon and Carter.

Harbourboy, I would have voted for Tom Hanks but not Jay Leno. David Letterman maybe.

NonSequitur, Your comments on Kerry are interesting. Maybe I am in the position of not being able to see the woods for the trees-or is it the other way round? We all get fixated on our own little issue and hence fail to see the big one.

Prehaps people from other countries can see some things more clearly than we can. Just as long as they remember that this is not a homogenous country. Far from it. I think homogenous is the right word.

 

Nakia,

I wouldn't call myself authoritative in any way about Kerry - that's just my reading of it from over here in Australia. I do think that he ran a flawed campaign, and that his failure to really mobilise the youth vote was what killed him (alongside the support of the religious right for Bush). I will admit that I'm more than a little biased and don't know much about the Democrats' economic and domestic policies... although usually Darkwolf can correct any of my unfounded assertions!

 

I also cannot see why people voted for him. After he betrayed people first time around I cannot see why they gave him another chance. I guess some people voted for him out of fear of the unknown.

I respect all Americans that have spoken out against him and his policies. I realise that it can sometimes be a dangerous thing to do but it is best to do what is right rather than what everyone else is doing.

Regarding why people voted for him based on his views of gay marriage:

As I have said before - adultry degrades the vows of marriage not homosexuality.

 

People like simple messages. People like being told how things are and how to think. People like a "strong" leader. People like it when politicians share their own prejudices. Last but not least, people will always be a sucker for a leader who appeals to their nationalism, patriotism and promises to give them glory and vengeance on the battle field.

 

May I ask what vengence they are seeking on the battle field? High old prices for their gas hugging '1 mile to the gallon' SUV's?

Even out extremist policital groups over here keep their sectarian opinions out of their speeches!

 

Why for the WTC attacks of course! It is the easiest thing in the world to make people feel like the wronged party of something, anything and that they are the underdogs needing to stand up to themselves even if reality says that they are the ones in absolute power.

 

Face Facts:

Bush Bash! - he ran his private oil company into the ground until he went to bed with the Saudies and they bailed him out - long history between the Bush family and the Saudies . . .

wait and see how poorly he runs US-the largest company in the world

[ January 24, 2005, 23:26: Message edited by: Ox ]

 

Anyone for taking bets on how many bombs Ox gets off before the boom drops?

 

Politicizing 9/11.

He made people fear the terrorists(color warning system), and credited himself and his party in the recovery process at every level(Giuliani at the local level, and the War on Terror at his level), then the American people believe that he's looking out for them even though they may not agree with his politics. They're just voting for stability, even though it's a dupe(my opinion).

 

I would just like to add that most if not any population would fall for the same tricks so it is not some pure American phenomenom. People are extremely easily manipulated, everywhere.

 

Well, Nakia... I don't expect politicians to be honest. No such delusion for me. I'm not surprised when one of them is caught lying. In some cases, I'm disappointed, though. Not surprised, but still disappointed - a very specific feeling, if it at all makes sense. I don't take every single inconsistency for flip flopping, nor every single display of denial for lying, but when it comes to that stage, the guy doesn't get my vote. Even if it means I don't have anyone for whom to vote. That's why I stayed home during one of our elections, though perhaps I should have gone there and cast a blank vote.

We can debate whether the war in Iraq is a good thing or a bad thing, or maybe a necessary evil, or simply an inevitable consequence of historical developments. But when it comes to Bush himself, all that he can give for the war is justifications, not reasons. And he can't even get a good one.

 

When they say values, we will say principles; when they say morality, we will say virtue. Discovering the difference in this will help to understand why some voted for Bush, while others voted against him.

As far as economic issues, which ones has he excelled at? How is the economy better after four years of Bush, than before 2000?

And George Washington

 

Not saying I agree with him or anything. It's probably just some people could prefer him over Kerry for supposedly lower taxes or some such. Just taking a guess on this one.

 

Under Bush, America's foreign debt has mushroomed to unheard of levels. It's anyone's guess how they are going to dig themselves out of this hole.

 

Chev, we are all guessing. The people that I was hoping would post here haven't.

Those who have posted here have In MY Opinion posted very good points, have given me things to think about and I thank you.

 

I think the principal element of Bush's appeal is the optimistic illusion that he presented to voters. Sure, the US and its interests are subject to violent attack, but the President is fighting off the evildoers. He's going "to smoke 'em out" and will make them pay, thus ensuring America's safety. Even as he runs an unprecedented deficit, Bush assures citizens that he'll reduce their taxes so they'll be a bit better off personally. For every problem, Bush has "a plan". He tends not to give more information than that, but the hope is that you'll just believe rather than worrying about it.

My opinion is that Bush was successful because people chose to believe rather than to worry. Bush offered them the illusion of a strong nation, moving toward a brighter, safer, more prosperous future. Kerry pointed out the real problems created by the invasion of Iraq, out-of-control spending, and terrorism that has not been stopped just because of a "War on Terror" that is largely the effort of an invader to keep control of occupied Iraq. It wouldn't have taken that much to make the Will save and disbelieve Bush's illusion, but I expect many would rather believe in it than accept a disturbing reality. Such wishful thinking is certainly not limited to politics. Consumer debt is as large a problem as it is because some people would rather believe they can have everything they want than take a serious look at what they can afford.

Although I think that providing a pleasant imaginary world was important, I'm not suggesting that's all Bush did. He did take some real action, particularly against groups different from mainstream American society. America's been afraid of foreign attack since "9/11", so Bush attacked foreigners. Homosexuals have long been scapegoats for problems of "moral decay" even as many family problems revolve around the promiscuity of heterosexuals and consequent births, so Republicans campaigned to enshrine discrimination against them in many state constitutions.

(EDIT)I'm not claiming that Americans would approve of these things cast in these terms. Dislike for those different from ourselves is a common emotional response. I have my own prejudices, especially against those whom I consider opposed to my values. I think that prejudices did help to drive acceptance of these American policies, but that they also needed a veneer of civility because Americans don't want to see themselves as bullies. That's why opposition to the American occupation in Iraq is always represented as terrorists, whereas fighters in France when it was occupied are considered heroes. I've met my share of Canadians who still support Bush's invasion of Iraq, largely based on prejudice and fear, and even now there are political movements in Canada to keep homosexuals second-class.(/EDIT)

Many of the Whitehouse's explanations are obviously flawed, where the justification for invading Iraq is perhaps the most famous example. A search for "Weapons of Mass Destruction" became an attempt to prevent Iraq from developing any and then a liberation of the Iraqi people. Some, however, are less transparent and it is hardly surprising that voters failed to see through them. This is particularly true where quantitative information is involved.

For example, examine what the National Republican Congressional Committee tells us about taxes . You'll note that everything is described in terms of averages. "109 million American taxpayers have seen their taxes decline by an average of $1,544." The average provided seems to be the mean, which means that it's unlikely to provide information about what the "average American" will really get. The median would be better, though it's still not the whole story. Unfortunately, even though in this bright age Americans can actually get some schooling for free, many of them don't bother learning enough mathematics to understand why the NRCC statement is probably misleading. If your statistics is rusty and you're not sure what I'm going on about, read this (thanks, Google).

(EDIT)That mathematical interlude may be a bit off the main topic, but I think it's an important example of things that the electorate should know but probably doesn't. So learn your maths! Stay informed! "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."(/EDIT)

[ January 25, 2005, 15:55: Message edited by: wrgrey ]