New York Times guest columist and Slate Editor Dahlia Lithwick writes that liberals are making a big mistake in treating the President as dumb kid. Lithwick writes that "infantalizing" Bush instead of making a case for Kerry, allows liberals to live up to their repuatation of "snotty know-it-alls" who think that people in the Red States are simple minded idiots. She also says that this baby treatment also implies that anyone who voted for Bush in 2000 was a fool. Here is her money quote:
"These assertions also insult anyone who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000. Rather than offering an argument for Mr. Kerry, they merely disparage swing voters, who may be tempted to defect to the Democrats over the war or the economy, by sneering that they voted for a kid - and a dumb kid at that."
I did not vote for Bush in 2000. I was one of those people didn't like either one and voted for Nader out of protest. (That was a mistake.) However, between Bush and Gore, I liked Bush more and did support him for the first two years. Why? Because he ran a campaign that seemed moderate and showed resolute resolve after 9/11. What has bothered me is how liberals are still wondering why anyone would have supported Bush or still does. I think they need to stop being shocked that anyone would vote for Bush and find a way to pursuade Americans to support Kerry.
But the, making fun of your opponent is so much easier and fun. You don't have prove why your guy is better, especially when he doesn't seem to give a reason to vote for him except that he's not the current occupant.
Posted by Dennis at August 19, 2004 09:51 AMI believed Bush in 2000 when he championed compassionate conservatism so I'm not sure where that places me - but in my defense I live about as far north of Texas as one can get and still be in the continental U.S.
I read the Lithwick piece and I agree that she is spot on but what she's talking about is playing out not so much in the national campaigns as it is coming from the surrogate campaigns waged in the pooh bah media, on internet, and in discussions among friends and family.
And if you'll let me indulge myself and contribute to our nation's trash I'll say that anyone who thinks that George Bush jr. is stupid is stupid.
But there is an equally ominous poison coming from the other direction through talk radio and the partisan cable channels.
Where as the left is being whipped up to sneer, dismiss and infantalize those supporting Team Bush, the right is being (and has been for some time) egged on into an animosity for the non-Bush that doesn't have to far to go before it becomes hate.
Posted by: dorsano at August 19, 2004 07:13 PMI think the left wing campaign of calling Bush a moron, etc. is not only juvenile, it's counterproductive. It's counterproductive because it inadvertantly lets him off the hook. It makes him into a rube who's well-intentioned but not to bright. I mean, who hates Forrest Gump?
I'm not going to let him off so easily. I don't give a rat's behind what Bush's IQ is. I care what he's done, doing and plans to do for this country. Or to this country. I'm not going to vote for him based on that criteria alone.
Posted by: Brian at August 19, 2004 04:26 PMDennis,
I also voted for Nader out of protest. I couldn't stomach Bush in 2000, and Gore was not much better. I truly wanted Nader to get his 4% so that the Green party would have a larger voice in 2004. Didn't work out that way, though.
Given Gore's awfully lackluster campaign and lackluster personability, it's not surprising that people voted for Bush in 2000, though. Bush certainly didn't impress, but he made people feel good - or at least, he made them feel better than Gore did, and that's not too hard. A rather simplistic reason, we know, but it worked for Reagan for two terms. It worked for Clinton. It failed Bush's dad, who had a decided lack of charm in 1992.
It's a sad state of affairs that the charm factor is what makes people cling to a particular person, but that's reality. It would be better to simply accept that reality, and find someone to run that has that charm and can also find Afghanistan on a map without needing remedial geography lessons. For the nineties, that happened to be Clinton.
It's also best to simply accept that that explains Bush's popularity in 2000, and it continues to explain a good deal of his continued support - he simply charms his way into the hearts of voters, so that even the poorest job comes off looking like it's really not that bad, after all.
And it really doesn't do a lot of good to try to convince people to not pay attention to the charm. They can't help it. You have to somehow outcharm the charmer. People will tell you that they like the president based on his policies, but really it's about the charm. It's about how he makes them feel, not what he does.
I think Edwards could have done that, had he gotten the nomination. Hell, I know Edwards could have. Dean, possibly, could have risen above that charm with fiery charisma. But Kerry simply can't pull that off, and that's one reason all the polls are still so evenly divided.
Posted by: Mark Kittel at August 19, 2004 10:56 AM