I orignally wrote this as a newspaper column after the 2002 US Congressional election. I think it still has value in light of the presidential election in 2004.
Nov. 13, 2002
The results of the November (2002) US Congressional election can be laid at the feet of a political phenomenon called "The Bush-Effect." This is where a sitting, popular president, can take his national agenda and turn it into a local issue embraced by all.
Some might have called it the "9/11 Backwash Election" or the "War with Iraq Referendum" but the immensity of the results clearly indicate that it went well beyond that. In fact what we may have born witness too was the embryonic beginnings of a genuine National Conservative Consensus in American politics; something that would be welcome in Canada, if only the Tories and the Canadian Alliance would unite.
Because of the fickle nature of US mid-term elections some might think this was merely a slight shift in the political breeze. But, when you consider that even among Democrats it was those who, by-and-large, supported Bush that got elected, the results have a much more profound meaning.
Gone, it looks like (at least nationally), are the days when being politically "central" is the safe bet. Now to get elected a decidedly Right-wing tilt is needed. Part of it, definitely, is due to 9/11 but the other part has to do with the fact that, in an era of both economic, political, and social uncertainty, a strong, tough vision is needed; even one which some may disagree with. Since the Democratic Party is really just a circus with a one-trick pony (ie. Bill Clinton), when that one left there was little point to the rest of the show.
As a party, the Democrats biggest weakness is that they are party of factions (the laughable "Rainbow Coalition" being just one zany part), just like the Liberals and NDP are in Canada. Although some people still like to glibly point out the tired old adage of "strength in diversity" the practical person intuitively KNOWS how patently illogical such a claim is. Why? Because to make "strength in diversity" work you ALWAYS need a charismatic leader and lots of gullible people who want to buy into it. If you don't then the centrifugal forces within such a polity will invariably tear it apart.
Only a truly charismatic person can keep all various Liberal and Democratic animals under the same big-top tent because they are so in awe of him that they forget their own natural incompatibilities and enmity. Without him, however, the more "conservative" animals naturally drift towards their Republican brethren (ie. the so-called "Reagan Democrats") while the Liberal/Democratic ones drift towards the Clinton/Gore crowd. The problem, however, is that Clinton is gone, Gore is laughable (still), and the Enron, Worldcom, the Tech Meltdown, and even 9/11, which all had their roots in Bill Clinton's presidency, have shown just how foolish and nebulous the goals of the Liberal Left really are.
On November 5th, when faced now with a choice between "ideals" and "practicality," the American public chose practicality and moved back towards the Conservative Right. By doing so they chose, in effect, to vote for unity and not faction, and expressed faith in a common vision rather than a multi-layered and nebulous ideal, even if it scared them a bit. Gone, it seems, are the days when the electorate was content to divide between "black issues", and "white issues" (as I'm sure future elections will show), or between "minority concerns" versus "non-minority concerns." Under the Bush-Effect, the rules have changed and it is values that are the real "issues" now, not the need to find common ground among divergent "factions."
In the long run that spells doom for the Democrats, and Left-wing parties in Canada. Unable rally support amongst various divergent and dissimilar groups of electors, the party of FDR and John F. Kennedy is now in danger of losing their legitimacy for existing altogether, much like the NDP and Liberal parties up here.
The main reason for this is that, like other parties that have come and gone, Democrats and Liberals NEED factions to survive since they, apparently, lack any supportable values or even a coherent national vision. But they also need supportable candidates too, not aging hippies, who can keep those factions together. Without that "glue" they drift into irrelevancy because they will (and do) lack a genuine consensus or a truly national agenda.
This may explain why there are a fair number of governorships still in Democratic hands. As a party of factions it is quite natural that they would win locally since they are more able to tailor their messages to smaller groups of people, without those people worrying about any possible impact on overall NATIONAL policy. Yet even here the winds of change were blowing, as seen by a number of new (and some say surprising) victories by Republicans. This means that the line between national and local issues has blurred and, where the real triumph of the Bush-Effect lies.
In less than a year, the much maligned, tough-talking, big-stick-wielding President has become a bit of a folk-hero. He makes Americans feel secure, he tells them good days are coming and he doesn't mince words. In short, President Bush demonstrated that he IS one of the people. Clinton, on the other hand, "acted" like one of them, while Gore "pretends" to be one of them, but the US public instinctively knew they really weren't, nor the party they represent.
Bush, however, both politically, emotionally, and perhaps even temperamentally, definitely IS one of them. That's why they responded the way they did to his conservative, practical, straight-forward message; much more so, apparently, than the "high-minded" ideals espoused by the liberal establishment. It’s also what allows him to so easily bridge the gap between national politics and local politics and draws people of all shades and stripes to him.
It was this identification with the President that transformed the National Agenda into the local agenda. It is the Bush Doctrine brought down to the average American, and the average American bought into it because deep down they knew that the alternative is factionalism, and acceptance of something other than their shared conservative values.
The Democrats, like the Liberals and NDP in Canada (and elsewhere) however, were not been able to grasp this. Trying, instead, to appeal to groups of people and some nebulous, "high-minded" ideals, instead of core values and practicality, they trip over the reality gap and face-plant into the pool of irrelevancy. Unable to form a consensus amongst themselves on what should be their strengths, such as "health care" and "education" (which the Republicans have smartly appropriated), they are left without a national agenda or even a local vision. All they have, then, are the tired old sayings of a bye-gone era and wishful thinking for the next.
Bush, and the Republicans, however, did not make that mistake. Practical and conservative, their message and values resonated much better because they truly represent what America is all about. Because of that, they didn't so much have to "sell" something "new" as to remind the public of what they already have, and really are themselves. It's also what makes the Bush Effect so powerful and demonstrates, as this election did, how a national agenda can be transformed into a local issue, which most people can then embrace.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
see also: http://georgewbushandthestate.blogspot.com/
Nov. 13, 2002
The results of the November (2002) US Congressional election can be laid at the feet of a political phenomenon called "The Bush-Effect." This is where a sitting, popular president, can take his national agenda and turn it into a local issue embraced by all.
Some might have called it the "9/11 Backwash Election" or the "War with Iraq Referendum" but the immensity of the results clearly indicate that it went well beyond that. In fact what we may have born witness too was the embryonic beginnings of a genuine National Conservative Consensus in American politics; something that would be welcome in Canada, if only the Tories and the Canadian Alliance would unite.
Because of the fickle nature of US mid-term elections some might think this was merely a slight shift in the political breeze. But, when you consider that even among Democrats it was those who, by-and-large, supported Bush that got elected, the results have a much more profound meaning.
Gone, it looks like (at least nationally), are the days when being politically "central" is the safe bet. Now to get elected a decidedly Right-wing tilt is needed. Part of it, definitely, is due to 9/11 but the other part has to do with the fact that, in an era of both economic, political, and social uncertainty, a strong, tough vision is needed; even one which some may disagree with. Since the Democratic Party is really just a circus with a one-trick pony (ie. Bill Clinton), when that one left there was little point to the rest of the show.
As a party, the Democrats biggest weakness is that they are party of factions (the laughable "Rainbow Coalition" being just one zany part), just like the Liberals and NDP are in Canada. Although some people still like to glibly point out the tired old adage of "strength in diversity" the practical person intuitively KNOWS how patently illogical such a claim is. Why? Because to make "strength in diversity" work you ALWAYS need a charismatic leader and lots of gullible people who want to buy into it. If you don't then the centrifugal forces within such a polity will invariably tear it apart.
Only a truly charismatic person can keep all various Liberal and Democratic animals under the same big-top tent because they are so in awe of him that they forget their own natural incompatibilities and enmity. Without him, however, the more "conservative" animals naturally drift towards their Republican brethren (ie. the so-called "Reagan Democrats") while the Liberal/Democratic ones drift towards the Clinton/Gore crowd. The problem, however, is that Clinton is gone, Gore is laughable (still), and the Enron, Worldcom, the Tech Meltdown, and even 9/11, which all had their roots in Bill Clinton's presidency, have shown just how foolish and nebulous the goals of the Liberal Left really are.
On November 5th, when faced now with a choice between "ideals" and "practicality," the American public chose practicality and moved back towards the Conservative Right. By doing so they chose, in effect, to vote for unity and not faction, and expressed faith in a common vision rather than a multi-layered and nebulous ideal, even if it scared them a bit. Gone, it seems, are the days when the electorate was content to divide between "black issues", and "white issues" (as I'm sure future elections will show), or between "minority concerns" versus "non-minority concerns." Under the Bush-Effect, the rules have changed and it is values that are the real "issues" now, not the need to find common ground among divergent "factions."
In the long run that spells doom for the Democrats, and Left-wing parties in Canada. Unable rally support amongst various divergent and dissimilar groups of electors, the party of FDR and John F. Kennedy is now in danger of losing their legitimacy for existing altogether, much like the NDP and Liberal parties up here.
The main reason for this is that, like other parties that have come and gone, Democrats and Liberals NEED factions to survive since they, apparently, lack any supportable values or even a coherent national vision. But they also need supportable candidates too, not aging hippies, who can keep those factions together. Without that "glue" they drift into irrelevancy because they will (and do) lack a genuine consensus or a truly national agenda.
This may explain why there are a fair number of governorships still in Democratic hands. As a party of factions it is quite natural that they would win locally since they are more able to tailor their messages to smaller groups of people, without those people worrying about any possible impact on overall NATIONAL policy. Yet even here the winds of change were blowing, as seen by a number of new (and some say surprising) victories by Republicans. This means that the line between national and local issues has blurred and, where the real triumph of the Bush-Effect lies.
In less than a year, the much maligned, tough-talking, big-stick-wielding President has become a bit of a folk-hero. He makes Americans feel secure, he tells them good days are coming and he doesn't mince words. In short, President Bush demonstrated that he IS one of the people. Clinton, on the other hand, "acted" like one of them, while Gore "pretends" to be one of them, but the US public instinctively knew they really weren't, nor the party they represent.
Bush, however, both politically, emotionally, and perhaps even temperamentally, definitely IS one of them. That's why they responded the way they did to his conservative, practical, straight-forward message; much more so, apparently, than the "high-minded" ideals espoused by the liberal establishment. It’s also what allows him to so easily bridge the gap between national politics and local politics and draws people of all shades and stripes to him.
It was this identification with the President that transformed the National Agenda into the local agenda. It is the Bush Doctrine brought down to the average American, and the average American bought into it because deep down they knew that the alternative is factionalism, and acceptance of something other than their shared conservative values.
The Democrats, like the Liberals and NDP in Canada (and elsewhere) however, were not been able to grasp this. Trying, instead, to appeal to groups of people and some nebulous, "high-minded" ideals, instead of core values and practicality, they trip over the reality gap and face-plant into the pool of irrelevancy. Unable to form a consensus amongst themselves on what should be their strengths, such as "health care" and "education" (which the Republicans have smartly appropriated), they are left without a national agenda or even a local vision. All they have, then, are the tired old sayings of a bye-gone era and wishful thinking for the next.
Bush, and the Republicans, however, did not make that mistake. Practical and conservative, their message and values resonated much better because they truly represent what America is all about. Because of that, they didn't so much have to "sell" something "new" as to remind the public of what they already have, and really are themselves. It's also what makes the Bush Effect so powerful and demonstrates, as this election did, how a national agenda can be transformed into a local issue, which most people can then embrace.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
see also: http://georgewbushandthestate.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment