Why Critics Have Not Successfully Exposed Mr. Bush's Failures

[rodeodance]

worth the read. He is right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-branfman/bush-is-endangering-our-l_b_13528.html

Fred Branfman

01.09.2006
Bush Is Endangering Our Lives - 2: The Psychology

.....9/11 was one of the most significant events in American history not because of the number of people killed -- a fraction of the annual toll from automobile accidents -- but because the first major attack on American soil killing large numbers of ordinary citizens dramatically triggered both our latent death anxiety and desire to be protected by the President. Only such an explanation can account for the fact that immediately after 9/11 the President's poll-ratings soared and he was given carte blanche to wage war despite his obvious inexperience and lack of knowledge; and that he still enjoys high poll ratings for his handling of the war on terror despite that fact that it has been totally mismanaged.

Democrats cannot ignore this psychological fact and hope to win power and govern successfully. It is impossible to "change the subject" to healthcare and education. Only if they unite and wage a protracted campaign to convince Americans they can better protect them than Mr. Bush will they be able to break through many people's unconscious but powerful tendencies to turn to the President for protection.

Why Critics Have Not Successfully Exposed Mr. Bush's Failures

This will require first that Mr. Bush's critics confront their own psychological issues. Most of us grew up opposing the wrongful use of the American military and CIA abroad, police and FBI power at home, and fighting for civil liberties. We are not psychologically comfortable fighting for a tough anti-terrorism strategy that is in fact needed given the threat we face. It is often easier to justifiably attack the Administration for its frequent "fear-mongering," rather than to undertake the psychologically difficult work of developing a strategy -- including military, police AND "soft" measures -- to defeat people who really intend to and can kill large numbers of American civilians.

Of course, Democrats should ALSO speak out loudly on moral and legal issues, develop bold new programs that differentiate themselves from conservatives, and so forth. But the necessary psychological precondition for being heard on these other issues is to convince Americans that they can better protect them than conservatives. This will prove particularly true in the event of another domestic 9/11.

[rodeodance]

1. He is right. While it gives me a moments please to splat out some

phase such as this-----in the long run it is ineffective.

......It is often easier to justifiably attack the Administration for its frequent "fear-mongering," rather than to undertake the psychologically difficult work of developing a strategy -- including military, police AND "soft" measures -- to defeat people who really intend to and can kill large numbers of American civilians.

[blm]

3. Kerry developed a tiered strategy to fight terror and spoke about in his

campaign at almost every stop. Media chose to edit most of it out of their coverage, and when he brought it up during the debates, the media chose to NOT DISCUSS his plans during their post-debate analysis.

[400Years]

7. as someone else here stated before: media control = mind control = power

it's as simple as that. So many people are going around looking for a magic formula but
all we have to do is find a way to take over the minutes and hours that people spend ingesting
propaganda and plant our own information into the public mind instead.

[blm]

8. Heh....he who controls the airwaves controls the brainwaves.

.

[bunkerbuster1]

11. I didn't want to have a beer with Kerry, so I wasn't listening!

and I can't hear you now! la la la la la...

[rodeodance]

2. yes, this seems right on.

.....The key word is "nonconscious." Many conventional Democratic strategists say Democrats should try to "change the subject" to education and healthcare because swing voters often do not mention "death from terrorism" in polls and focus groups. As TMT indicates, however, voters are often not conscious of their death-fear, and/or are reluctant to mention it when polled because they do not want to seem weak or are denying their fears.

But it seems clear that voters' fears of terrorism deeply influence voting behavior because: (1) the public still gives Mr. Bush high marks for his "war on terror" despite the obvious evidence that he has failed; (2) Karl Rove, Richard Cheney and their minions maintain relentless message discipline that the President is protecting us from death because they have found the same thing as the Terror Management theorists: that reminders of death build support for the President. They would not have consistently used this theme for more than 4 years now if they did not find it worked.

[Zensea]

4. Then why did New Yorkers vote against Bush?

This thesis of the author's makes sense to me, but I think he needs to account for the fact that the people who were closest to the impact of 9/11--actual NYC residents--voted overwhelmingly against Bush.
Perhaps we consciously faced our death more than the rest of the country?

[centristo]

12. so true

A friend of mine from Boston joined the Marines and cited 9/11 as a reason why. I think many did. This is part of what makes America great, that so many wanted to help out after a tragedy that did not directly affect them. Unfortunately, their desire to help has been grossly misused. Thousands expected to be sent into Afghanistan and found themselves in Fallujah instead...

[quiet.american]

14. How about this -- 9/11 happened on Bush's watch!

Bush the Doofus either dropped the ball or pitched the ball on "September the 11th," but no matter what you believe, no matter how you look at it, or what angle you come at it from, he and his administration are responsible for the events of 9/11. What thinking NY'er can have confidence in the dangerous man-child after watching the doofus sitting in that chair minute...after...minute...minute... who can forget the doofus flying all over the place that day "just trying to stay out of harm's way."

And one almost can't count the ways in which Bush has sinced screwed New York.

You know... don't get me started! -- as the saying goes. :wtf: :mad: :eyes: :)

[Skinner]

5. This is a fascinating read. Thanks for posting it.

I would encourage people to click the link to read the entire article. My gut says that this guy is correct.

[400Years]

6. There is no war on terror

9/11 was the direct result of decades of corrupt and greedy foreign policy.
If you stop screwing people over they won't want to kill you. The "war on terror"
is nothing but a continuation of the same old policies of rape and pillage of
weaker countries and peoples. The fact is the people who operate in the Bush
regime want terror and they want enemies, either real or imagined. These
enemies are needed to keep the American people scared and compliant.

[missouri dem 2]

9. Bingo. We have a winner.

The republican party has always depended on a boogy man to distract the masses from their policies of corporate theft.

[centristo]

13. so you think 9/11 would never have happened

had Gore been President? I've often wondered about this, but I think ultimately it would have happened regardless. The WTC was originally bombed on Clinton's watch afterall.

[Doctor Panacea]

15. 9/11 and Gore

I am not at all sure that the attacks would have taken place under a President Gore.

BushCo almost certainly knew that something was afoot but chose to do nothing about it, instead waiting for their "new Pearl Harbor attack" to take place as a means of implementing the PNAC plan for the Middle East.

[beltanefauve]

17. President Gore

would have read his Presidential Daily Briefings and most likely would have taken note of the one which read, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States". I believe he would have paid attention to the briefings which suggested that terrorists would have attempted to drive planes into buildings. And he wouldn't have been on vacation, nor would he have taken more vacation time than any other President in history. And this doesn't even account for all the MIHOP and LIHOP possibilities, which, with this administration seem more probable every day.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. "...conservatives who promote expanding Executive power in violation of

their own ideology of limiting government."

Actually, I don't see the conflict there. If there is great power vested in the executive, while the legislative is weakened, it is simpler for the corporations to control the government. The key is WHY they want to limit government -- corporations want to eliminate interference, and a recalcitrant legislature can throw up a lot of interference. A powerful executive who is beholden to them, however, can 'catapult' the interference of laws and regulations from the legislature. The best way to limit the power of government is to own the chief executive.

[applegrove]

16. Read "Assasin's Gate". Goes into how the psychology of Iraqis is

totally messed up. Because they lived under a sociopath for so long. Fear was used again and again. Tribalism & terror.