Someone To Believe In

Some meandering thoughts on the election -

I don't do political analysis well, and there are a lot people smarter that me who have probably already said what I say below, or at least some variation thereof. But I do try to keep a finger in the wind to what is happening on the political scene despite my fundamentally apolitical outlook. Randall asked earlier what exactly happened in the election of 2004. I give you my answer.

Any starting point should be based on the assumption that the bulk of voters make their decisions based on what they hope, not what they believe. The consequences of voting are so far removed from their daily lives that it costs them nothing to make poor voting decisions nor does it benefit them to educate themselves to make good decisions. (The exception is when a certain decision is likely to effect their lives directly, like voting for the corporate welfare candidate when the factory is in danger of being shut down.) As a result, votes are mostly based on feelings, intuitions, empathy, gut reactions, and identity. Policy matters are secondary.

One of things that struck me about the 2000 election was the reasoning on which many of my left-liberal friends based their antipathy towards George W. Bush. What has he ever done to deserve to be President? they would ask. When I replied that he had run a smart campaign and pulled off an impressive win against an incumbent party in a perceived relatively good economy, they would say, But he has had everything handed to him his whole life. To them, it all came back to who he was - his identity, his family inheritance, his station in life. They saw him as the loser fratboy son of a President who used nepotism and family connections to become successful, whether in politics or life outside. He simply did not deserve to be President, issues and capability be damned.

The notion of desert is profoundly important to the worldview of the left. They support price controls because they think poor people deserve low prices, throwing aside any thoughts of shortages that occur as a result and hurt the poor disproportionaly. They vote for welfare programs because they think the less fortunate deserve a better life regardless of whether or not those programs breed dependence and destroy the work ethic. They continue to support the Democratic Party for the same reason in spite of the evidence that the policies of the Democratic Party generate poverty.

When someone like Bill Clinton comes along, they embrace him. He grew up in an abusive home, the son of an alcoholic, in rural Arkansas. He even purposely took some blows from his father to distract attention away from his mother. He had the same weaknesses as the rest of us, and in a roundabout way, admitted them. This was a man who deserved to be President.

Unfortunately, John Kerry did not inspire the same feelings. He was a cold wealthy Northeasterner who had traveled the world as a child. He married into even greater wealth. His wife is a condescending heiress who herself was born to privilege. She even pronounces her name in an elitist way. The left never really felt for Kerry the way they did for Clinton. He was merely the notBush.

The right truly loathed Clinton because in their eyes, he lacked something that holds similar significance for them as desert does for the left - values. They saw Clinton as a womanizing sleazebag who wouldn't change his ways even after repeatedly getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He had no self-control, no discipline. He lacked not just a moral center, but any convictions whatsoever, including even going as far as co-opting Republican issues as his own to stay in power. They hated his lip-biting, his phony sincerity, his redefining of the most basic of verbs, and his non-heartfelt apologies.

Conservatives support Bush for the same reasons that they revile Clinton, despite Bush's policies. They see him as someone who found the strength within himself to change his life to overcome the temptations of alcohol. He may not be the most eloquent speaker, but when he says something, he means it, no matter how awkardly it comes out. They eat up all his Texasisms - "smoke 'em out", "nucular", and "we'll get him dead or alive," because to them, they have far more meaning than any planned speeches. When the world changed, he had the conviction to stand firm against America's enemies and proclaimed evil when he saw it. Heck, the guy even landed a fighter jet on aircraft carrier. In Bush, they see someone with a bottom line, someone willing to set ultimatums, someone solid, someone willing to make difficult decisions. It doesn't matter that he created a massive federal entitlement program, is destroying civil liberties, and is spending like teenager a blank check. It doesn't matter that the War isn't going as well as they had hoped and that Bush won't admit this. He is firm in his decisions and doesn't look back. Bush has an essence, a core which they can identify with, reckless policies be damned.

The election of 2004 came down to one simple fact: conservatives felt much more empathy for Bush having values than left-liberals felt empathy for Kerry's deservingness of the presidency.