How does Bush appeal to people?

[Kipling]

Why do people vote for Bush? I realise that people can quite easily be persuaded to vote for a total bastard, at least in a lesser-of-two-evils sort of way, but a total idiot?

Bush projects the image of a simple, easily confused man: lethargic, slow-witted, inarticulate, and above all out of his depth. The last person I would choose to be my leader, regardless of policy. Whether this is his real personality or just an act, why does it seem to pull people in? Leaving policies aside for a minute, focusing on personality and image, I am fascinated by his success. Point me to any other successful politician with a similar image. Reagan had the same "small town" vibe, but he was also fairly articulate and gave the impression that he knew what he was doing. An interesting poll the other day showed that only 5% of foreigners would have voted for Bush: it must be some unique current in the modern USA that gives Bush his charm: are Americans more trusting than other people, or do they think being President is an easy job that anyone could do?

Personally, after thinking about it for all of 10 minutes, I believe it may have something to do with how cosy, welcoming, and easy-going Bush is. He's a lovable moron, totally unthreatening, a barrier between the mean scary world of terrorists and gays and the good ol' USA. Could anyone who actually lives in the USA please explain this to me better?

[soleft]

1. I think he appeals to people who need a father figure

Who have warped ideas as to what a strong father figure is, and who are probably in denial about their feelings about their own fathers.

My mother says Bush is a "good man" the same way she says her father was a "good man" and apparently he was an abusive rageaholic.

[sellitman]

5. Yes...but a father figure is respected.

What is there to respect with Junior?

[soleft]

17. The people who choose him as one are in deep denial

It's a fantasy bond not based on reality or a healthy need.

[punpirate]

2. Very simple...

... by scaring them. Oldest trick in the book of politics. First scare `em, then tell `em you're the only guy who can protect `em.

Cheers.

[Kipling]

8. Probably true...

Still, I also stick by my analysis that he's seen as a stoic barrier to scary change and progress, keeping things cosy and folksy.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Well, this is what his t-shirt says:

[texastoast]

7. More like

I use Jesus to trick people, and many are too stupid to see it coming.

[judy]

4. I think people like Bush,

because he reassures them that everything is OK (no global warming, Iraq was the right thing, etc...) after of course scaring them to death.

They like him because he goes for the least possible effort: it is easier for some people to just hate gays for example, than wonder why they have certain feelings within themselves.

They like him because he gives them easy answers to everything. Society becomes black and white, good and evil, revenge is the way to go, everything is simple, no more efforts.

He goes for the lowest common denominator, and lets people keep their heads buried deep in the sand.

I disagree that he appears to most people as a loveable moron.
He is uncurious, indifferent, disingenuous, without conscience, sociopathic but I don't believe he is a moron, and he seldom appears loveable, in spite of what the Media likes to say.

However, a lot of people like him because of his mediocrity. He is unthreatening to the millions of people who hide their low self esteem behind some kind of swagger.

[mark11727]

10. I have never, EVER, found him to be likable...

... he always had the air of someone who got away with something horrendous. A sneaky, smirky, I-know-the-fix-is-in rich-kid snottiness that would have gotten the mortal snot smacked out of him years ago in Yale, save for his invaluable family connections.

He's never taken responsibility for anything he's ever done (or done wrong), having either been bailed out by his family or connection, or the evidence just "disappeared" (like his TANG records were scrubbed prior to his Texas gubernatorial campaign.) He never should have even made it that far.

During the 2000 campaign, it was often said "who would you rather have a beer with?" Bullshit. I don't want to go out drinking with the President, I want him awake, alert, and with a freaking clue what the hell he's doing.

I can't wait for 2009, when a new President (please Lord, let it be a progressive) takes the oath of office, and at least begins the decades-long project of cleaning-up after this disgraceful excuse for a world leader.

Just sayin'.

[CrispyQ]

21. Judy, you hit the nail on the head with your statement:

"...a lot of people like him because of his mediocrity. He is unthreatening to the millions of people who hide their low self esteem behind some kind of swagger."

I believe our society has lowered our standards on so many things -- our sense of community, appreciation of aesthetics, education, physical fitness, & the list goes on, that we truly have become a nation filled with many, many individuals with low self esteem. We have become lazy & complacent, resting on our laurels. Instead of aspiring to greatness, which is 'hard work,' many people prefer minimal effort. Of course, when great things don't happen to them, they are quick to blame others for their lot in life -- gays, women, liberals, anyone but who is really to blame, which is themselves.

I've seen this in my own family. :(

[EVDebs]

6. Through FEAR.

[EC]

9. Can't help you, I look at him and see a smarmy

shifty eyed con man....always saw him that way...like the rich kid that is psychotic, but gets away with it, because no-one would believe it, since he comes from "such an upstanding family"...He's the kind that when I meet them in bars or on the street, I steer clear and if they hit on me, I tell them to fuck off...there is just no way I would have had anything to do with him or anyone like him...so I don't get the appeal either...

[FSogol]

11. He is a reflection of the people who voted for him

Greedy (my kids aren't in public schools anymore. Why should I have to pay for the schools.)

Ignorant (Get a clue Morans!)

and Completely convinced they are correct 100% of the time.

[demokatgurrl]

12. The best explanation I've heard:

He's totally unintimidating. Unlike Rhodes scholar Clinton, too-eloquent Kerry, Doctor Dean etc. he just isn't that smart or accomplished or manly or anything that would intimidate the average Joe.

[MsTryska]

16. what are you saying?

he's the Ron Jeremy of politics?

[ComerPerro]

13. In 2000 a lot of people didn't know what a moron he is

I don't know why, quite honestly. I mean, you can just watch the man for five minutes and its obvious that he is an idiot.

But not many people knew what a dangerous liar he was.

Now, though, his only "appeal" is that people are scared out of their minds.

[Ikonoklast]

14. Prezzidunt Boosh is a fine feller

and Ah wisht yoo wood stop mekkin fun of him. I laks wen he is on TV becuz wen he tawks it meks me feal lots smerter then him evry tahm. Bye the way, Ah noe Jesus luvs simpl peeple bucuz he maid lots uf om.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Beats me...

I think some people see him as a "daddy" figure. And those people's daddies were probably lethargic, inarticulate, etc, etc.
Something very Freudian about being able to totally ignore (ad absurdum) glaringly obvious faults while simultaneously deifying the man.
Some praise him for his plain-spoken "everyman" demeanor. But only the "plain-spoken" part seems to apply to this wealthy scion of Northeastern wealth and power. And even his plainspokenness is the result of intense manipulation of words and phrases by professional PR people. Ever notice that every major issue is endlessly referred to by short, snappy sound bites? "Up or Down" is one such nauseating example. Problem is, it works. Anybody who wants to dispute these positions MUST use more than 5 words. That's where they get shut down. It makes an easy phrase for Hannity to shout at people to interrupt them when they're getting close to making a point.
Of course, the media is complicit in this, quashing negative news while giving every possible avenue to the preznit to spin anything his own way even if it's not true. And past statements don't count anymore if they conflict with the present situation. The word "Hypocrisy" just fails to explain the repeated, absurd flip-flops, misrepresentations and inconsistencies seen almost daily.

From Abu Ghraib to his personal habits, it is impossible to get a straight answer that DOESN'T contradict known facts. Or elaborate non-answers are spouted, full of buzzwords like "patriotic" or "brave" or "liberty", sometimes completely out of context to a serious question.
There are times he shows his true weakness - the unscripted, uncontrolled, interview. Confronted with something he hasn't heard, been prepared for or been briefed on, he is embarrassing to watch.
he stumbles badly, glares or gets dismissive of any line of questioning that goes against him.

How does he appeal to people? Beats me. I don't hate the man personally, I just don't understand how how someone like this came to hold the most powerful position in the world - with so little qualification or aptitude for the job.

[Czolgosz]

18. Karl Rove has built a successful 2-prong strategy to bolster Bush's appeal

Rove's strategy for rich Bush voters with empty hearts:

quid-pro-quo

Rove's strategy for poor Bush voters with empty heads:

quid-pro-Jesus

[leftofthedial]

19. by being stupider than about 70% of them

he is NOT cosy or welcoming. he is offputting, sneering, condescending, rude and arrogant.

the reality TV people (who unlike Brits, have not the slightest sense of irony about it) just love that someone is dumber than they are. It's comforting to them. It makes them feel powerful knowing that they are smarter (or at least no stupider) than the putz in charge.

[XemaSab]

20. Can't answer that

I think people who watch only the corporate media are completely fooled.

He seems to them to be plain-spoken, honest, folksy, salt-of-the-earth, regular dude.

But I see him as a crafty, devious, snake with a fake accent.

I think people just aren't informed, and I think the party has done a really bad job of informing people what he's really like.

For example, many Murricans think he's a Texan, born and raised, and that's just a load of shit. I think Kerry should have constantly referred to him as a fellow New Englander during the primaries, and smear that shit all over his face.

[Lexingtonian]

22. in being all these things

Bush represents a relatively unthreatening, but extremely clear, near-caricature of the privileged parts of American society. He represents white privilege, wealth privilege, Christian privilege, and male privilege all at the same time. He's a capsule of everything aspired to by people who consider the traditional colonialist social and economic and political order of the United States desirable and good and agreeable. If you're wealthy, you don't need to be very adaptive or intelligent- just smart and conforming to your class, etc. Every person who grows up in wealth is a 'small towner'- you have a relatively small group of people you are truly interdependent on and are loyal to, a class you have an impersonal loyalty to, and you encounter a lot of people from outside your class, people you don't really know, who want things from you all the time and who you have to fob off.

Bush is popular because he appeals, by being an uncritical embodiment of this, to all the medieval detritus that has survived in the society- after all, colonialism is merely a form of and preserver of medieval feudalism and its subideologies. He's gone out of his way to embrace all of it. And the adherents of it 'love' and champion him in exuberant and irrational ways, because he represents their hope of countering the rising pressure of Modernity against them. All the feudal serfs/slaves at heart love him as king, the pagans under pretense of Christianity love him as a fellow subverter of Christianity and hypocrit, the merchant class loves him because he leads wars for spoils and divides them up to their benefit and takes the tax burden off them. He chases down and slaughters the raiding infidels; those his army captures are tossed into the dungeons and tortured into confession of their crimes. He wages wars against the evil competing infidel kings and restores Christianity to the natives. He subjugates the rebellious dukes and barons of the realm and picks them up off the ground, upon which they serve him and are forever in his debt. He has the King's Touch- he touches a girl in Ohio, and she heals as a result. He casts the Spell Of Power out against the Fiends, If You Are Not With Us You Are Against Us, and they dare not attack the holy soil of our Homeland ever again. He castigates the demon-possessed, sends the Investigators out to reduce heresy and restore the true Faith in places where sodomy is rampant and innocent families cry in anguish about the depravity of society and the demonic heresy that inspires it- Liberalism. He bows down at the altar and gives praise to the One Lord Almighty who guides him. He is the Lord's Sword and Shield, and he does well by his Church- the Christian Right- by bequeathing them land and taxation rights. But the quarrelous continue to oppress him, keep raising all kinds of objections and spreading disloyalty and dissent in the land. They believe the land is growing poorer and more desperate, is dying within. They say all this man who rules by Divine Blessing is immoral and hypocritical, but they do not see the Fruits of Righteousness and the blossoming of the Gospel Truth that is taking place. They do not realize how this realm, this kingdom of and by and for God, is attaining humility and temporary poverty while the other lands of the world grow richer but degenerate into immorality.

The story is simply that the United States has been able to maintain an European medievalism far longer than European countries have. It was harnessed, the colonial/feudal socioeconomics of it termed "Capitalism' (its competitor was called Communism and was still the medieval Asian-ish Imperial socioeconomic scheme), and used throughout the Cold War.

American domestic politics since the end of the Cold War is the argument about Modernity replacing the colonial agrarian/industrial/theist/pretheistic order of life. The rest of the world is various stages of the same argument, and as conservatives lose ground they've allied themselves across national borders to maintain strength- and transgressed across them, too.

Bush represents most sides of the conservatives in the U.S.- the peaceful looking traditionalist representative of the upper classes and priest figure to his supporters, the vainglorious warrior king and colonial overlord in dealing with Outsiders (both of which derive from the Indoeuropean king-priest twosome ruler scheme), and the frantic dirty and desperate and denial-prone foot soldier against Modernity who knows his side has already lost the war strategically- is already defeated in History- but hopes that enough tactical victories can push the day of surrender out far enough in time.

[maxsolomon]

23. bush = OBL, both anti-modern conservatives.

it strikes me that one of OBL's main targets is also western modernism.

this suspicion that modern life is devoid of spirit/soul/meaning isn't even exclusive to conservatives like bush & OBL. the left suspects it too.

"take the only tree that's left, stuff it up the hole in your culture" -l. cohen

[Lexingtonian]

26. very true

It's been said in print that Bush is both obsessively against and entirely understanding of bin Laden because they think alike.

Bin Laden isn't out to destroy Modernism in the West. But he'd love to destroy it in the Middle East, where it tends to be imported or imitation rather than homegrown.

The Left is an inversion of the Right, not an autonomous political logic as Liberalism is. That's why the Left is such an annoying impediment at the moment. It is conservative and anti-Modern in social and cultural matters, despite claims otherwise that always prove hollow. It doesn't just suspect the Modern. It buys into the essential spiritual/material mixup that the Modern rejects.

[maxsolomon]

27. i never know whether to think of myself as a lefty

but i do feel that acquisitive materialism is not a spiritual & fufilling way to exist. but that's not modern, neccessarily (speaking as an architect).

i don't give bush credit for understanding OBL. he does not want to see. i thought his "crusade" comment showed just exactly how out of touch with OBL's stated goals. its not white american christianity that al queda fights. its us godless heathens & our apostacy.

has bush even read OBL's "letter to america"? has cheney? has gonzales? has rumsfeld?

[Lexingtonian]

28. yeah, I had that dilemma too

Until I looked over American history long and hard enough.

It turns out that subordinated/oppressed groups make slow and quiet social and economic progress until their socially subordinated status comes into serious question. (They can avoid all activism on the subject, it doesn't do them any good.) At that point the charity extended, the goodwill born of guilt- caused and balanced by subjective certainty that the injustice involved will endure the actors' lifetimes- is sidelined or given up. And reactionary elites "backlash", crush the group's social and economic rights, which are invariably poorly secured, to a minimum.

After that, the fight becomes a physically or psychologically terrible one of attaining social justice. When that is won, economic rights commensurate with the social rights attained are (re)extended fairly rapidly with fairly minor amounts of fighting.

This pattern is seen in the fight that toppled the Puritan theocracy, the fight that rid the land of the British monarchy, the fight that rid the country of slavery and the planter-ocracy, and the fight around Suffrage. It's also there in the present fight about state enforcement of social partitions and privileges based in biology and cultural traditions.

There are always Tories and Uncle Toms, people who think that giving up just demands and collaborating with the oppressors will work, will turn back the clock and get them dealt with charitably again. It never does. The latest example is a lot of gay activists saying that the fight for gay marriage should be given up so that their gains in financial benefits from employers and such aren't rescinded.

I regard social liberalism as the side of the fight that always needs all the help, and gains in social rights/equality is what secures all the political and economic progress possible. I haven't given up sympathy for the Left and there is a time when its efforts are the important ones to back, but at present its efforts are nonproductive. I can point out how 'wedge issues' work to Left activists on DU and elsewhere until the cows come home- that voters need to discover and accept a change in social reality before they'll put votes or money toward helping the group at issue. But you just cannot get any more than lip service on social justice issues from Left activists and politicians- Nader was so absolutely typical.

Material stuff/quantity/power is a substitute for spiritual content/quality/peace. Materialism is always resorted to when people have lost their bearings in spiritual things. There's the famous Edifice Complex in churches that are spiritually losing their way, since you mention architecture.

The theologically ironic commonality between Dubya and bin Laden is that in actions and policies they both actually represent the 'remnant' pre-Christian and pre-Islamic paganisms and occultism that make up the bulk of their respective religious traditions, traditions that don't actually proceed out of their nominally authoritative source books. We're arguing with pre-Enlightenment religion and its spurious "spirituality".

By the likes of us being non-theistic and yet certain about an absolute value to mankind- humanists- people like us are IMHO in fact far truer to the substance of the Abrahamic religions than all these rule abiding (or not) people who deny large subsets of other people any spiritual reality. Of the God(s) of the Hebrew Bible, I don't think the supreme form designated YHWH is even a theistic one (Thorvald Boman even argues it, as does Buber iirc), so all the Christian fundamentalist "hard" theism seems to me unable to escape the charge of (a) Biblical infidelity and (b) heresy. It's probably likewise for bin Laden, the fundamentalist notion of "jihad" probably being a clearcut infidelity to the Koran and such. He probably is in heretical violation of the Islamic doctrines of compassion, just as the Israeli West Bank settler extremists are of Judaic doctrines of justice and compassion.

Arguably apostacy is saving religion from its 'defenders' and Modernity is saving religion from the exceedingly corrupting consequences of its historical compromises.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[election_2004]

25. He nominates "lovely people" for judicial vacancies

And then he tells his allies to shed tears in public to get them confirmed.

[Jade Fox]

29. When this question comes up....

I always refer people to this article:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/12/int03326.html

It's a bit long, but well worth the read.

[snowbear]

30. And this thing helps too...

[Czolgosz]

31. I have a theory. Bush = Jessica Simpson. I think Jessica's success is,

in large part, due to the fact that she has been "branded" (i.e., sold as a brand name product not branded like a cow, well, not EXACTLY like a cow) very successfully. Stated another way, Jessica has been sold as a very clear image of something very easily understood (the dumb hot chick). The fact that the image is not positive is less important than the fact that the image is very simple and is presented with great consistency, which is very non-threatening. The very simplicity and lack of ambiguity is comforting, and the comfort factor is more important than the fact that the image is not itself a particularly positive one.

A think Rove sells Bush the same way. Bush is "the dumb frat boy." Whenever we see Bush confirming that (negative) issue, we think it hurts Bush (because we think being dumb is a bad thing). Rove sees this as a positive thing because it clarifies Bush's image and enhances the comfort factor by presenting a simple, consistent, non-threatening understanding.

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on this theory, regardless of whether those thoughts support or reject the theory or just comment on the idea.