Negativity in Presidential Politics

[angus]

With all the descriptions of geopolitical identity, the comparisons of Carter in 1980 to Bush in 2004, and constant reminders of polarization by the journalistic class, one might reach the conclusion that we're in for one of the most negative presidential campaigns ever.  In the Democrat Party primary debates a greater amount of time was devoted to descriptions of the legislative agenda of the Bush administration than on candidates' descriptions of their values.  Even on this enlightened forum we relish in the bloodsport of rhetorical attack.  Will the nastiness of the 2004 general election campaign exceed that of the 2000 campaign?

[angus]

In any case, the precious 2-6% of true swing voters want to see the identity and policies of the candidates clarified. Bush doesn't have much work to do there - he's a known quantity, and one that I believe the voters would prefer (in terms of policy) to Kerry.

I rode my bicycle in today as it is a beautiful warm winter day in the East Bay area.  I'm a contrarian, I suppose, because I agree with this completely.  And, yes, it seems to be the nastiest campaign season ever.  I keep trying to facilitate at every party or lunch gathering, but there's less and less common ground.  I'm not even sure some of these people really believe what they're saying, they just repeat the words because Kerry (or Bush) said it so it must be right.

[angus]

Thanks to all who voted.  Clearly, this wasn't a randomly selected sample, but the results are telling.  

We have 18 votes Yes (100%) and zero votes otherwise.  This is reassuring, and gives me optimism.

First, if anyone had selected no, I'd assume dishonesty, so it says that no matter how much we may disagree, except for the usual smartass remarks, we're all being honest in this forum.  Dave Liep has done an excellent job here, as evidenced by the quality of the users.

Obviously, the third choice is pretty much a tacit admission one thinks negatively.  I whine and moan quite a bit about negativity, stereotyping, and general lack of effort to compromise (appreciate the hypocrisy), but the fact that everyone chose the more serious 'yes' option is at least an admission of negativity rather than an attack.

Good news indeed.  Yes, it'll be a much nastier campaign than last time, or so that's what everyone believes, but not as nasty as it might be.  Read some accounts of the 1876 election, or take a look at C-SPAN programming of those nasty House of Commons debates.  Maybe Bush and Kerry, both respectable statesmen, will come out of this alive.

[angus]

"Anyone who runs is a viet cong.
 Anyone who stands still is a well-trained viet cong."
                   --From Full Metal Jacket

Bush survived vietnam too.  The smart way.

[angus]

Gustaf,

Some people need to kick cats to prove that they are a man, others need to kill gooks.  I see nothing noble and honorable about that.  I am the odd republican that would be much less likely to vote for someone who volunteers for an unpopular imperial war of choice and then, 30 years later, has his henchmen go after the guy who made the smart choice to avoid that nastiness.  I see from your sig file that you supported Iraq.  I did not.  That is not my brand of conservatism.  Nevertheless, anybody that says Bush is wrong for wanting to live is ed in the head.  The same survival instinct that made him join the Guard maybe is what is causing the doctrine of Pre-emption.  I'll have to think about that.   But, I'll not brainwash myself into thinking that Kerry is somehow nobler because he knows how to kill, up close and personal.

You should check out "Reflections of Evil" by Damon Packard.  It's a very low budget irreverent film about consumerism in the USA.  Lots of ripped-off footage.  He was sued by Spielberg, Lucas, FOX news, and many many others.   Violent language, mind you.  Very violent.

[angus]

fair enough dunn.

anyone watching deborah norville just now?  There talking about the new Bush commercials.  "Exploitation of tragedy."  Man, it's gonna get nasty.  

What, did Michael Jackson just endorse John Kerry?!

[angus]

In all seriousness, Kghadial, if you've read my posts, you know how offensive I find such exploitation.  You make an excellent point.  

Rightwingnut, in another post, suggests that if George would just come on out, admit possible intelligence failures (I can see the jokes coming, enough already), then he'd look magnanimous and have a much easier reelection bid.  

I'll say again, I didn't vote for him last time, but I was genuinely impressed with the president during those days following the attacks, and maybe I'm looking for a reason to vote for him.  He and I have many many disagreements, but I think he has shown himself to be an honorable CEO.  Normally, when you pay big money for eggheads to tell you what to do, you follow their advice, but I think if bush would just go with his intuition, he'd be okay.  

Zachman, you make an good point as well.  But, if I had to guess, I'd guess that more veterans still will vote for Bush than Kerry, based on available statistics.

[angus]

If you are referring to Kerry's "defense record" it is not a little thing.  I wish it were.  It would be easier to swallow the senator from Massachusetts if it was just a minor thing.  Unfortunately, it's something that is extremely important in selecting a President of the United States.

Exactly.  As someone who voted to reelect Kerry to the US senate in 1996 I can honestly say that this is true.  It's a totally different ballgame here.  Kerry will have his seat as long as he wants it, I suspect.  But, take a good look at the Constitution of the United States of America.  You'll note the job descriptions in Articles I and II are quite different.

[angus]

I'll admit I haven't seen those ads , I'm not from a battleground state. Frankly I'm glad I won't have to see Bush crow about what a badass commander and chief he is.

There's no doubt that whichever side thinks it can exploit this situation, or anything else, will do it.  I think that's what the buzz in the media is about.  That's the flavor of the moment.  King George I never quite got it.  Or anything else.  His son has learned a thing or two.  For example, Bush the Elder blew off California in 1992, and lost many congressional seats in the process.  Bush the Younger campaigned here in 2000 and the republicans held their ground, and have gained since.  Campaigns aside though, there's something surreal about either one of them exploiting uniforms.  Something 1938 Germany about it all, know what I mean?  But we're the most populist nation in the world, and that's why it is this way.  It is why Elian Gonzales had to go back to cuba, it is the reason we are one of only a handfull of OECD countries that still practice capital punishment, and it is the reason Gray Davis was recalled.  This is neither bad nor good.  This is just the way it is.  

Indiana is Bush Country.

[angus]

If you could bitchslap the president would that make the world a better place?

[angus]

At one time or another, all of them pretty much.  Bush is a realist.  You and I are idealists.  Idealism can be dangerous.  For example, the Nazi were extremely idealistic, as were the Bolsheviks.  But idealism built great national institutions as well.  I think I'm moving into greater nationalism, but less intrusive government.  Capitalism, when combined with liberal democracy is the way that works best for us (though I have philosophical objections to its forced exportations).  Of course, now we're at war.  After the attacks, the President called on Americans to serve where they could, go on about their commerce and their lives, and made clear that those responsible would be found.  I was impressed with the early successes in the Afghan campaign to basically clean up the mess the US had contributed to over the years.  

The Iraq situation is divisive, no doubt confounded by that country's considerable natural resources, but motivation to stand with my president remains.  You can call it a quest for empire, pushing paranoia; the general complaint here seems to be the exploitation of the attacks.  (And the obligatory personal attacks on George Bush)  But that abdicates the quest for true understanding for the immense role the US plays among the economies of the world.  I really don't think you're choosing between republic and empire, I think you're choosing what kind of empire you want to be.  ("American Empire"  Andrew Bacevich, Harvard University Press, 2002).

"Pollution doesn't harm the environment.  It's impurities in the water and air that harms the environment."
     --Vice President Danforth Quayle

[angus]

Here's a nice explanation by Richard Wolffe.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4497111/

Jmfcst, you will definitely like the picture.