Why Bush Won

[Ryan]

This is humorous, but actually insightful.

Unlike most of my Kerry-supporting friends, I refused to have faith in a Democratic victory. I can remember the exact moment I lost my religion, too: Watching the second debate, the so-called "town-hall meeting," where the two candidates stalked one another in the ring like a couple of gladiators before a national TV audience. It was all I could do to keep from screaming: While all Kerry could do was impotently point and accuse like Banquo's (or Dukakis') ghost—being careful never to descend to Howard Dean-like shrillness—Bush seemed smugly confident, sure of himself, a warrior-king addressing his armies.

The next day, all any of my liberal New York activist colleagues could talk about was what a swaggering, arrogant, macho prick Bush came off as. After all, in our circles, men who don't exhibit empathy and interpersonal communication skills aren't very well thought of (though they do seem to get laid at about the same rate as the rest of us). However, what most of us artsy middle-class professional PoMo bohemian/yuppie types, with our highlighted hair and carefully-chosen thrift-store ensembles, failed to realize is that Bush's base of support goes beyond the "I got mine" conservatives with their SUVs and $400,000 tract homes that they can't afford to furnish, the gun nuts with their AR-15s, and the Christian theocrats with their red-letter Bibles open to Genesis 19. Bush couldn't have won as big as he did without the support of ordinary people who work in offices in fear of their bosses and their mortgages and getting laid off.

Guys who crank up Metallica in their cars and pound the steering wheel to "Master of Puppets," even though the last time they actually went to a concert was in high school ten years ago, because they're stuck in traffic and pissed off and there's nothing else they can do except go slowly mad.

Men who proudly describe themselves as "rednecks" with bumper stickers and lawn ornaments because they long for an ethnic identity more substantial than "one eighth Scottish, one eighth Irish, a quarter Polish, half German, and a little Cherokee," and, being deeply suspicious of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," want to be able to wear plaid flannel shirts around the house on weekends.

Fathers who aren't sure they like the domesticated life, but are too in terror of family-court judges to walk out on the wife and baby, and whose fears of not measuring up to being a provider like Dad was (never mind falling real wages) are only worsened by gay marriage and metrosexual New Yorkers with hair highlighting.

Say what you like—that at least Bush finally got elected, that the Red Sox swept the World Series because Kerry had to borrow the curse, that America deserves what it gets—but, in my humble opinion, this perceived American crisis of masculinity is the real cause of what happened November 2. Like watching action movies or professional sports, participating in the Bush victory was a psychic restorative, giving back some semblance of a sense of manly honor that has been stolen away by time clocks, Dr. Phil, and Zoloft. Bush's message speaks directly to the heart of the emasculated modern man: stick with me, and we'll stand tall, provide for our families, and kick terrorist ass.

And Kerry? No way he'd use anything like Karl Rove's boys' club gender politics. Hell, his campaign manager was even a woman.

The problem with the Democratic party isn't that it didn't address the issues—as the New York Times will tell you, it sure as hell did a better job of that than Bush—but that it's not addressing our society on a larger scale. We are a nation of feelers, not thinkers, and being sure our sense of gender is central to our sense of security, homeland or otherwise—which is no doubt why ten of eleven states passed anti-gay-marriage referendums.

(And as for the women who voted for Bush—hell, someone's got to marry those arrogant, smug, sexy assholes. Nothing like your own Dubbya between the sheets, especially if he's an old-fashioned type who will be a husband and provider.)

One thing's for sure: If the Left wants to get back on its feet, it had better grow a pair—or at least start acting like it has.

[Edwin Watson]

I dont disagree entirely with this article, but i think that it speaks to a rather limited percentage of the population.

The exit polls showed that there is a new trend in American politics, the increasing importance of morality, moral issues and moral purpose.

The more conservative right is controlling the moral position in politics right now. This is a trend that has been growing slowly, but steadily since the time of Reagan, quietly hanging around the background in vague rhetoric, eventually rearing its head vicously under Clinton with Gingrich and his cohorts as its proponents and cronies, failing miserably, but returning with a vengence with is new champion...W.

For some reason, this new trend has taken on a role much more important than any other, even the economy. Americans no longer vote thier pocket book, but thier morals, and, as John Stewart pointed out, for some reason the fact that the economy is a mess, we are being lied to by our government, we are stuck in two terrible conflicts which we will not get out of in the forseeable future, the budget defecits are out of control, and not only women's but civil rights in general are threatened daily is all being trumped by the idea of two dudes kissing.

The fact is the republican party is the "moral" party, and by saying that, they are the party that conveys a unified and coherent moral message. They stand for christian morality, family values, "freedom," "democracy" and "patriotism." In politics today, a sense of moral purpose trumps everything else. This expression of morality not only speaks to the core of the party, but to the presidential candidate as well, for he (and maybe someday, she) is the person that perfectly embodies this moral core. This gives a sense of knowing the person more completely, a picture of that persons core if you will.

The modern Democratic party has not done this in anyway shape or form.The domocrats do have a core set of values and morals, one that they have not conveyed at all to the public. The war is bad, the economy is bad...but no sense of the deeper values involved. The democrats of the past have been able to call upon this sense of morality and become some of the most loved and celebrated presidents in modern history. Presidents such as Roosevelt and Kennedy did so beautifully, but did Kerry. NO, not in the least.

We can all pick just about any situation or issue we can think of and know exactly where Bush stands. Can the average American say the same about Kerry. I seriously doubt it.

The democrats need to get better at this, or rather, start doing this again. The core values of freedom to be who and what we are, real democracy where the rights of the minority are not infringed upon (as apposed to the tyranny of the majority), basic care and protection (the whole humanity as a brotherhood, help thy neighbor thing), opportunity for all, etc. need to be expressed once again or the democrats will continue to lose elections.

anyway, that is my opinion.

[Hey Bubu]

Tyler Durden woud be proud