The Politics of Division
OR: What We Learned from Election '04
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
The United States of America has always been about the concepts of freedom and responsibility. It was founded on those principles 225 years ago when a group of mostly rich, mostly well-educated people got together and decided that representation in a government was more important than loyalty to the King of England and freedom to achieve was more important than supporting decisions of a government that didn't have your interests at heart. A poll taken among the new citizens of the united colonies just after July 4, 1776 would not, however, supported the view that the the people of the colonies necessarily agreed with these views and indeed, were deeply divided over whether this "Declaration of Independence" in Philadephia was worth the paper on which it was written.
The beginnings of the United States reminds us that division of the electorate into 2 disparate camps as it is now is not the worst thing that could happen. However, the reasons for the split and analysis of what people said in Exit Polls does paint a picture of America that is very disturbing and if not reconsidered by both parties could lead to dire consequences for our democratic system.
The first thing that the Exit Polls tell us is that most people voting (78% according to the CNN poll) had already decided whom they would vote for over a month before the election. The theory that politics is about ideas and that debates are meaningful is clearly contradicted by this result. $6 billion in election spending by the parties was overkill for what most voters already thought and changed almost nobody's mind.
We can't distinguish between Republicans and Democrats in the poll so we have to assume that the "gut instinct" used by the voter (since Mr. Kerry had not had significant opportunity to Wow! us with his debating skills) suggests strongly that the election was a referendum on Mr. Bush, plain and simple. Indeed, voters said in the same CNN polls that those who thought Iraq was the most important issue in the campaign voted almost 3 to 1 for Kerry. Those that thought Terrorism was the most important issue voted 3 to 1 for Bush. Thus a division of purpose. Those that cared about Iraq dismissed terrorism as something either candidate can do much to prevent. Those that cared about terrorism thought Iraq might be an "adventure in poor judgment" but thought Bush had shown leadership against terrorism.
Did Kerry ever have a reasonable chance of winning the election when so many of the real issues were a referendum on Bush? It is unlikely that Kerry could have won any votes from the NBB (Nobody BUT Bush) with any argument. Kerry was painted as "immoral" even though he is a lifetime Catholic with an altar boy background in Boston. Bush was a hard drinking, cocaine snorting hillbilly who was at most a C Student at Yale and Harvard. Yet, Bush was the "moral values" choice by the electorate. Bush could do no wrong with the NBB coalition that included upper income earners, Evangelical Christians, rural farmers and the rural poor. Even the lack of WMD's, the inability to capture Osama Bin Laden and the militaristic attitudes of the Bush Administration towards traditional allies in Europe and elsewhere (Canada and Mexico) only reinforced a belief in these voters that Bush was their man.
The fact is: this coalition of peoples may not have liked each other, but they sure did think Bush was "their boy." They may be accused of not knowing the issues, not seeing the big picture, but they voted for Bush anyway. They didn't vote against Kerry whom they respected for being an "Intel"-lectual, but he would always finish second to the boy from Texas! (Bush may think Kerry worked for Intel for all we know, wouldn't put it past him).
The second exit poll analysis that is obvious is that the cities and the suburban-rural areas are divided politically into 2 groups, each with a much different political focus than the other. Kerry won almost every city in America, even in the south, even in Texas. But the cities in many states were not big enough to overshadow the suburban-rural groups. This means that the agendas of LA, Chicago, New York City, Boston, Washington are much different from the America George Bush lives in politically. Where the cities were big enough (California, New York, Illinois) Kerry won. Where they weren't (all of the South and into the West) Bush won.
This would tend to be a more important issue going forward for Republicans as the American population tends to become more and more concentrated in city areas. Bush was a "dynamic" force in the rural and suburban areas, but another candidate might not be so fortunate. Rudy Giuliani, Bill Frist, Ralph Reed (all possible 2008 Republican candidates) do not have the "dynamics" to keep the coalition together as it must to win again. The Democrats, on the other hand, will be even more appealing to the city voter after 4 more years of Republican government. It might even play out that someone even more liberal than Kerry could win simply by the virtue that city voters believe it has been 8 years since anyone represented their interests (healthcare, jobs, prescription drugs, social security).
Many times the phrase "a uniter not a divider" came up in the campaign. How does a candidate in the future ever do that given the disparity the polls showed? How does one bridge the gap between moral values and political values. Bush hasn't done it and shows no inclination to spend "political capital" doing it in the future. The Republican Candidate for President in 2008 would have to run even more "right" than Bush to hold on to the energy needed to defeat the city voters who will be even more united next time.
It paints a very sad picture of the politics of right and left. However, perhaps that is all we now have remaining.
The beginnings of the United States reminds us that division of the electorate into 2 disparate camps as it is now is not the worst thing that could happen. However, the reasons for the split and analysis of what people said in Exit Polls does paint a picture of America that is very disturbing and if not reconsidered by both parties could lead to dire consequences for our democratic system.
The first thing that the Exit Polls tell us is that most people voting (78% according to the CNN poll) had already decided whom they would vote for over a month before the election. The theory that politics is about ideas and that debates are meaningful is clearly contradicted by this result. $6 billion in election spending by the parties was overkill for what most voters already thought and changed almost nobody's mind.
We can't distinguish between Republicans and Democrats in the poll so we have to assume that the "gut instinct" used by the voter (since Mr. Kerry had not had significant opportunity to Wow! us with his debating skills) suggests strongly that the election was a referendum on Mr. Bush, plain and simple. Indeed, voters said in the same CNN polls that those who thought Iraq was the most important issue in the campaign voted almost 3 to 1 for Kerry. Those that thought Terrorism was the most important issue voted 3 to 1 for Bush. Thus a division of purpose. Those that cared about Iraq dismissed terrorism as something either candidate can do much to prevent. Those that cared about terrorism thought Iraq might be an "adventure in poor judgment" but thought Bush had shown leadership against terrorism.
Did Kerry ever have a reasonable chance of winning the election when so many of the real issues were a referendum on Bush? It is unlikely that Kerry could have won any votes from the NBB (Nobody BUT Bush) with any argument. Kerry was painted as "immoral" even though he is a lifetime Catholic with an altar boy background in Boston. Bush was a hard drinking, cocaine snorting hillbilly who was at most a C Student at Yale and Harvard. Yet, Bush was the "moral values" choice by the electorate. Bush could do no wrong with the NBB coalition that included upper income earners, Evangelical Christians, rural farmers and the rural poor. Even the lack of WMD's, the inability to capture Osama Bin Laden and the militaristic attitudes of the Bush Administration towards traditional allies in Europe and elsewhere (Canada and Mexico) only reinforced a belief in these voters that Bush was their man.
The fact is: this coalition of peoples may not have liked each other, but they sure did think Bush was "their boy." They may be accused of not knowing the issues, not seeing the big picture, but they voted for Bush anyway. They didn't vote against Kerry whom they respected for being an "Intel"-lectual, but he would always finish second to the boy from Texas! (Bush may think Kerry worked for Intel for all we know, wouldn't put it past him).
The second exit poll analysis that is obvious is that the cities and the suburban-rural areas are divided politically into 2 groups, each with a much different political focus than the other. Kerry won almost every city in America, even in the south, even in Texas. But the cities in many states were not big enough to overshadow the suburban-rural groups. This means that the agendas of LA, Chicago, New York City, Boston, Washington are much different from the America George Bush lives in politically. Where the cities were big enough (California, New York, Illinois) Kerry won. Where they weren't (all of the South and into the West) Bush won.
This would tend to be a more important issue going forward for Republicans as the American population tends to become more and more concentrated in city areas. Bush was a "dynamic" force in the rural and suburban areas, but another candidate might not be so fortunate. Rudy Giuliani, Bill Frist, Ralph Reed (all possible 2008 Republican candidates) do not have the "dynamics" to keep the coalition together as it must to win again. The Democrats, on the other hand, will be even more appealing to the city voter after 4 more years of Republican government. It might even play out that someone even more liberal than Kerry could win simply by the virtue that city voters believe it has been 8 years since anyone represented their interests (healthcare, jobs, prescription drugs, social security).
Many times the phrase "a uniter not a divider" came up in the campaign. How does a candidate in the future ever do that given the disparity the polls showed? How does one bridge the gap between moral values and political values. Bush hasn't done it and shows no inclination to spend "political capital" doing it in the future. The Republican Candidate for President in 2008 would have to run even more "right" than Bush to hold on to the energy needed to defeat the city voters who will be even more united next time.
It paints a very sad picture of the politics of right and left. However, perhaps that is all we now have remaining.
PolMach Forums
WinCustomize Forums