I think Blue Triangle has given us some good stuff to work with here.
Originally posted by BlueTriangle
My primary reason for supporting Bush, I trust him. When I see him speak on television, I know that he is a down to earth human being, just like
This explains a good bit of Bush's support all along, I think. Other politicians (in both parties) often appear very much as what they are: members
of an elite. Bush seems very good at conveying the misimpression that he's an ordinary guy. It's not true, of course; he's very much a member of
an elite himself: rich family, educated at Yale, never held down an ordinary job, etc. But he comes across otherwise.
Reagan was pretty good at that, too. His origins, of course, were much humbler and less elitist than Bush's. But no movie star/governor is "plain
folks." Interestingly, Reagan's background was very similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger's, but Schwarzenegger doesn't come across as "plain folks"
while Reagan did. I really think it's a learned skill.
I completely support the war on terror . . . In short, the Iraq war is a necessary sacrifice to secure our future wellbeing, as well as that of the
rest of the world.
This is likely another reason. Bush has a vision of America as an imperial power, with the government and the military aggressively used to support
the interests of U.S. corporations abroad, in ways that previous administrations have eschewed. The so-called "war on terror" is a justification
for that position for popular consumption.
I agree that, however convenient Bush found the 9/11 attack, we have no proof that he orchestrated it. But there were a number of possible responses
to it. An invasion of Afghanistan, freezing bin Ladin's assets, tightening anti-terrorist security in this country, these were actions Bush took
that anyone with a brain holding his office would have taken. But the logical response on top of this would have been to call for an international
police effort to capture the al-Qaeda leaders and bring them to justice, using the international good will and sympathy our victim status had
temporarily created, while examining what we could change in our own policies to make ourselves less hated in the Muslim world and so deny the bin
Ladins of that world popular support. Declaring a "war" on terrorism, using that "war" on the flimsiest of connections to justify invading Iraq
(something Bush wanted to do before 9/11 ever happened), and also to justify violating the Bill of Rights at home -- this is not a logical response to
the attack, but rather an opportunistic one.
That said, however, there is a segment of the U.S. citizenry that delights in American military victory, and wants to see the country "stand tall"
by kicking other folks' tushes. The ease with which we kerblobbered Saddam gives a thrill like a shot of coc aine. Bush's militaristic,
aggressive stance feeds the need for that thrill. And that I think is the real underlying reason why the war had such a high initial level of
support. The current grind in Iraq is less thrilling, of course, and that is why the support has dropped.
As another poster mentioned, unemployment is extremely low and I don't buy the theory that these are all bad jobs. Without going into details, I
will say that my job situation has improved dramatically in the past 5 years and I certainly don't work at McDonalds.
That does prove that the new jobs aren't "all" bad ones. There's at least one exception. Make that two; my own job isn't bad either. But
statistically, a lot of the new jobs are worse than the ones they're replacing, as our manufacturing continues to migrate to overseas sweatshops.
Still, I can see this as another reason for Bush support. If one's own economic situation has improved, one may be uninclined to blame Bush for, or
even to acknowledge the existence of, the problems other people are encountering, especially if one has other reasons for supporting him.
With that being said, I think you folks are in for a huge surprise come November. What you don't see in the Presidential approval polls is that if
those polled that voted for Bush in 2004 were asked if they would rather have Kerry in there, the numbers would climb right back up.
Hmm. I have my doubts about that, but it's not really relevant, since nobody is running for president this year. I'm undertain what impact Bush's
low rating will have on the Congressional elections. It all depends on how much the voters link Bush with his party. Also on whether the Democrats
get their collective noggins out of their behinds and actually start standing for things the way they used to. We'll see.
Have fun tearing me up folks. Good day.
See ya. And thanks for the insights and windows into the mind of a Bush supporter.