Presidential election in U.S.A ( 2 Nov. 2004)

Unlike some have argued, the election did not boil down to resurgent US nationalism designed to recoup US decline.  Bush did not win because of Iraq, but despite it.  The decline of the US, the shrinking of the middle class, and the Republican economic policies behind these developments, were NOT why Bush won.  On the contrary, he won largely because certain Americans voted on certain cultural issues: they voted for racism, homophobia, etc. and these as requisite features of "moral integrity." 

In short, the Republicans have created a virtuous cycle for themselves by expanding or intensifying their base's support precisely by creating a vicious cycle for their base.

But how do they pull this off?  With two different policies that hide under a single slogan: "get government off our backs."

To the angry white men, the slogan may means a little bit more money in their pockets.  But above all, it is an expression of anger, prejudice, racism, etc.  It mean that less of their money goes to the welfare-lined pockets of lazy poor, especially the blacks, or the lazy immigrants who won't even learn English.  It means reduction of the welfare state, an end to race quotas, the whittling away of Affirmative Action.  It means government should not support Roe vs. Wade and the feminists and liberals, but should support key conservative values: pro-life, prayer in school, "one nation under God," marriage as "one man and one woman."

But to corporate America, the slogan has a very different meaning in terms of legislation, laws that without coincidence worsen the living standards of the Republican's base, as well as the middle and poor.  To corporate America, the slogan means:

> deregulation (of work safety, of product safety, anti-environment laws that, for instance, open up public parks to oil companies, or reduce pollution regulations and standards, etc.),

> privatization (school vouchers, faith-based welfare help, of social security, of medicare and medicaid),

> corporate wealthfare (continued huge subsidies of the industrial military complex, mega agribusinesses, capital gains tax reductions, big income tax reductions for the richest),

> anti-labor legislation and the continued evisceration of unions (neoliberal policies that encourage de-industrialization, no minimum wage increases, an official poverty line set at an obscenely low income level, etc.

In short, it means neo-liberalism and supply-side economics.  These policies thus contribute to the decline of the American working people.  However, the slogan is one that simultaneously encourages hate and thus ethnic, gender, racial, conflict WITHIN the working people as a whole.  It's a classic divide and rule strategy.

The Democrats have been too sophisticated to do this, especially if they're Liberals from the New England.  But the must combine morality this with another cultural tactic: they must talk tough on these issues, be aggressive, and thereby appear to have a "strong personality" a "strong leadership" ability (which doesn't require nationalistic chauvinism).  Complexity, reflection, introspection, detailed explanation, is political suicide.

Consider that the last Democrat president who held some kind of high moral ground was Carter.  But he appeared to be a wimp along side Reagan.  Clinton was just the opposite: firm enough of a leader, but morally corrupt.  None have responded forcefully to the Repubs, and as a consequence of seeming to take a "neutral" position, they appear both weak and immoral.

At the very least, this would make the middle-road people consider that perhaps the Republicans are not as moral as they claim to be and are not pursuing policies in the interest of their base.