Why do so many plan to vote for George Bush despite the hurricane of information regarding his mismanagement of the country? The
New Yorker had a terrific piece by Louis Menard in the August 30 issue that plumbed the depths of why undecided voters vote the way that they do. Menard examined a number of political science theories, including the idea that weather influences the way people vote. Menard concludes that, ultimately, human beings are social, not political, animals.
Individual voters are not rational calculators of self-interest (nobody truly is), and may not be very consistent users of heuristic shortcuts, either. But they are not just random particles bouncing off the walls of the voting booth. Voters go into the booth carrying the imprint of hopes and fears, the prejudices and assumptions of their family, their friends, and their neighbors. For most people, voting may be more meaningful and more understandable as a social act than a political act
That still doesn't get at the question of Bush's popularity--something that those of us who live north of the 49th parallel--or anywhere outside the U.S.--find baffling. Rick Salutin, a columnist for the Globe and Mail captured this exasperation perfectly last Friday:
"How can they think that way?" moaned Graz, the owner of Dooney's café on Bloor Street, after watching the Republican convention. Polls say most Americans disapprove of the Bush policies but are still ready to re-elect him, while many think weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, which also played a role in 9/11. It's their media, said Lynn, a regular who grew up in the U.S. People don't get to hear what's really going on.
"But," sputtered Graz, "The New York Times, the network news . . ." Lynn shook her head. "Those are elite media. They never reach most people." It was a Chomsky moment.
You have to love a national newspaper that discusses Chomsky seriously!
Noam Chomsky pioneered this approach: that the facts are kept from Americans by the media, blighting their views. It can be addictive. There are people who don't bother with the news, they wait for the next Chomsky critique. It is hard to find a trenchant critique of him, as opposed to glib dismissals. Those who attack him on specifics usually wind up being handed their heads, studded with footnotes.
But clearly there's more going on than just spin. After all, the "facts" ARE there for anyone with a critical mind and/or an internet connection. Even Chomsky doesn't believe that people are simply duped by the media. There is a deeper cultural dynamic at work here.
Slovenian philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj Zizek, interviewed in Left Business Observer: "I partially disagree with [Chomsky]. It's an underlying premise of his work that you . . . just tell all the facts to the people. The way ideology works today is much more mysterious. . . . There's an active refusal to know. . . . The question isn't of any real link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. . . . Both Saddam and al-Qaeda hate the U.S. That's enough of a link. You cannot really help by making factual refutations. The key factor is not that people are duped -- there's an active will not to know."
Salutin concludes that
What people seek is not truth but reassurance. They want to feel: Our leaders are wise; our enemies are crazed; our hands are clean; we are being told the truth etc. In private life, they seek similar comfort. In neither realm are facts crucial. There was a theatre group of the 1970s that called itself 7:84, based on the fact that 7 per cent of the world's people control 84 per cent of its resources. They were so knocked out by this stat that they behaved as if publicizing it would change the world. But change is indeed more "mysterious." It's the context of human need and self-deception that decides what facts get through, or don't.
BINGO! The Kerry campaign cannot win without going after the myth of George Bush, that Bush is strong and makes America safe. There is a mountain of evidence that Bush is not a strong leader at all, that he avoids difficult or complex discussions, is completely uninterested in "details" or management, is incapable of holding anyone in his administration accountable, has stood aside while his administration has engaged in deadly internal warfare (a "moral coward" in Josh Marshall's words). And there is a ton of evidence that he has made America far less safer (any one of his policies can be cited here). F 9/11 has been so effective precisely because it went after the Bush myth. Kerry has to do the same. It's not about particular issues or policies, it's not about "direction" per se, it's about the man and his fatal flaws. The Kitty Kelly book should provide a big boost in that area. The Kerry campaign has done many things right, but they're going to have to attack directly--and hard and soon--to win. This thing is certainly winnable because it doesn't involve lying about George W. Bush, it means knocking down the false facade. "All hat, no cattle" was a great start. Now, let's go in for the kill.