Is Bush dividing the United States ?

Maciamo

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,194
Reaction score
3,611
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
I already mentioned in other threads how I thought that the coming presidential election is bitterly dividing the American people between conservatives and liberals, more than pro-war and anti-war. The situation has resonances of the Spanish civil war in the 1930's and after-WWII China, where in both cases the country was divided between extreme-left and extreme-right. In this case, it is rather center-left vs extreme-right.

Here is what the BBC (Campaign column: Make or break) think of the situation :

BBC said:
The tension in the two camps is almost visceral.
It is hard to imagine a political race freighted with greater significance than this one. As one of my colleagues in the American press said to me recently, "it's only going to decide the future of the free world."
Click to expand...

BBC said:
If the Republicans win a second term and retain their hold on Congress, the Democrats would probably be shut out of power for the rest of the decade.
On the other hand if the Democrats win, it will represent the failure of the Bush Doctrine, triggering a civil war within the Republican Party.
...
If Bush loses, "there will be civil war in the Party on November the 3rd," Pat Buchanan, the former Republican presidential candidate, told me this summer.

Conservatives will say that Bush's unusual mix of tax cuts and military interventionism failed because it departed from the straight and narrow of Conservatism which is small government, fiscal discipline and no foreign adventures.
Click to expand...

BBC said:
That's why George Bush has been unabashedly conservative in almost everything he has done, surprising even those within his own party.

He has clamped down on stem cell research, gay marriage and funding for abortion clinics abroad. He has portrayed himself as a tough, decisive, and, above all, principled leader.
Click to expand...

BBC said:
Failure for the Democrats, however, will raise serious questions about their viability as a party.

Why can't they pick a populist candidate? Has America shifted permanently to the right?
Does the Democratic Party need to reinvent itself? These are the sorts of questions the elders will ask.

The Democratic Party lacks the cohesive unity of the Republicans.
It is a motley and sometimes fractious alliance of Deaniac anti-war protesters, blue collar union men, aspirant yuppies, retired Jewish communities and soccer mums.
Click to expand...
 
Is America divided? Definitely. Is it W's doing? I think not. This is a country that has loved to argue pretty much since its inception, and I don't think Bush is the reason. Vietnam saw the same kind of polarization amongst the populus, and I'm sure we'll see it more even when W is 6 feet under. I love it, personally. The fact that we can have such fundamental differences in ideals and principles is a testament to just how free we are here. Despite failings in the electoral system, we still have a CHOICE.

My problem with American politics is that the most important issue of all seems to have become Party affiliation. Say you're a Republican, and you're blasted with being a right-wing war-mongering nutbar who wants to hunt down and kill Arabs. Say you're a Democrat, and you're a free-spending, touchy-feely sissy. No one wants to listen to the other side, they'd rather name call and make a big deal about someone getting Botox. Politics has become so juvenile that running for Treasurer in high school seems like a dignified journey.
 
Really ? It likely won't be as close or divided as 2000, when it was Clinton's personal misdoings that did Gore in....why all of a sudden is it about the Bush policies instead of the man himself ? Anyway, no matter who wins or loses there will be a significant reduction in troops levels headed to Iraq which has been the main theme of this campaign.

I myself am thankful to be in a much more secure and profitable job than four years ago, if some fool that has been six months unemployed and without health insurance from Bush cutbacks wants to be the tipping point that gets him another term they have the one they deserve. It isn't anything that's going to effect the daily lives of most people, just like the campaign is only concentrated in a dozen or so selectively targeted states and regions. :note:
 
Yes, the country is extremely polarized since Bush became president and it is because of Bush.

In the last election, no one really cared. That's why so many of them said, "What the hell" and voted for Nader. But thanks to Bush's bumbling/@$$ kicking (depending on how you look at it) eveyone has a STRONG opinion now and plans to vote. I think that will actually work against Bush because a lot of people who didn't bother to vote in the last election (often liberal-minded) are fired up and ready to vote against him this time. It seems like every conservative was already voting anyways.
 
I think it only appears to be divided. Aside from the love/hate Bush trend this election has seen, I don't believe there is much of a split. After all the election hubbub dies down, I think America will go back to being like it used to. (Exempting the war in Iraq; I think that could cause a real divide, especially if there is a draft.) If Iraq goes the way of Afghanistan, forgotten by the main stream media and the American public, I don't see any real big conflict in the future of America's apathetic majority. Most will go back to what they did before.
 
I dunno. :okashii: I've never seen people so fired up around here and they have been for a few years now. Besides, taking the Iraq factor out of Bush is like taking the basketball factor out of Michael Jordan.

My father is a hard-core Republican, but before we were more or less able to put our differences in beliefs aside, but with "the Great Divide" in America, it seems like when it comes to politics, we can't agree on anything.

I think Conservatives under-estimate how pissed off Liberals are right now. But Conservatives have already dug their heels in and no one is compromising.
 
Besides, taking the Iraq factor out of Bush is like taking the basketball factor out of Michael Jordan.
Click to expand...

True. :embarasse

Still, I think that consumerism will unite more Americans than politics will divide. But, like you said, Iraq wouldn't be where it is today without our current Prez, and I definately think that could lead to powerful divide.



Hold it,
I just remembered you're living in America and I'm not.

:homer:

I cede to your judgement.
(Until I can come home and see for myself.)
 
I think Conservatives under-estimate how pissed off Liberals are right now. But Conservatives have already dug their heels in and no one is compromising.
Click to expand...
Kerry will obviously need a lot more than Liberals to win, his best hope being a strong turn out of young, first time voters who generally favor the challanger by 60-70% or so. So while Clinton may have been more divisive in setting off Conservative anger than Bush has been for Liberals, he also had strong support from Independent or swing voters for his more moderate policies. I still say the outcame will end up being slightly wider than the 4% Nadar received in 2000, but no predictions on which way it'll go....
 
but no predictions on which way it'll go....
Click to expand...

Kerry. I'm still waiting for someone to take my bet!

:biggrin:




Remember, I do accept PayPal and all major credit cards...
 
That any country should be divided between people of different opinion is not even subject to discussion, but what I find incredible with Bush is how he has divided American people almost perfectly 50-50 (at the 2000 election, and again now according to poll).

popular votes

The last tight presidential election was Kennedy vs Nixon in 1960 with only 0,17% of difference in popular vote and again Nixon, against Humphrey this time in 1968 with a gap 0,6%. Gore won in 2000 by 0,51%, but Bush got more electoral votes, which may be the first time such a thing happened in American history.

Electoral votes

In terms of electoral votes only, there has not been an tighter election than in 2000 in the 20th century (only 5 votes of difference out of 538). Even better, the electoral vote victory is rarely a near issue. The next tighter election was Wilson vs Hughes in 1916 (23 votes of differences out of 531).

Civil War North-South division is now inverted

If you check the map of presidential elections on Wikipedia, it is also interesting to see how the USA were neatly divided between the Republican North and Democratic South from the late 19th century to the 1932 elections (except for Wilson's Democratic Party's landslide victory in 1912). Then most of the US were Democrats again during WWII under Roosevelt, except a few north-central states. Then the Civil War division reappears in 1952 and 1956, and not until 1960 do we see North-Eastern states turning Democrats thanks to Kennedy in a pretty divided election. The 1996 results make it look like the Civil War parties have been inverted with most Northern (and West Coast) states voting Democrats, while the Deep South (and Mid-West) becomes Republican. This is the situation as it is still now.

It is interesting to see that the Democratic party, once party of the rich and deeply religious landowner of the South in favour of slavery, has become a populist and liberal party, while the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln, which fought for the abolition of slavery, racial equality and was supported by the ordinary Americans has now become a party for the rich and deeply religious business people in favour of war. There couldn't have been a sharper inversion of roles. It is only sad that the average American do not realise that and are fooled by names (rich people aren't).
 
Looks like I was more out of touch with America than I suspected.

I just sent a friend an email talking about George Bush, why I don't like him, and why we need to change our foreign policy.

He called me a

TRAITOR!​


Perhaps Brooker is right.
 
I'm tellin' you man, things have gotten hard core back in the good `ol U-S-of-A. Everyone is so passionate about their beliefs, whichever side their on, that enraged political discussions and name calling are commonplace. We need to get our equilibrium back.
 
I'm tellin' you man, things have gotten hard core back in the good `ol U-S-of-A. Everyone is so passionate about their beliefs, whichever side their on, that enraged political discussions and name calling are commonplace. We need to get our equilibrium back.
Click to expand...

The problem I see is that people can't put aside emotion when dealing with politics. The words "enraged" and "name-calling" aren't supposed to enter an arena that is supposed to be based on logic and rational thinking. If you get into a DEBATE with someone, you aren't supposed to come out hating them...but that's exactly what happens here. People love the ability to voice their opinions, but when someone else wants to voice a different once, all of a sudden it's "military-hating, unpatriotoic American traitor" vs. "arab-loving, kissy kissy foo foo nazi." Bush isn't dividing America...Americans are dividing America.

I don't know what you really mean by equilibrium, but I personally like how divided the US is. People have been apathetic about politics for far too long...ignorance breeds corrupt officials and allows people like Bush to do the things he has done. Even though the popular vote doesn't count, and some states are already going one way or another (like my CA), and even though there are tons of people still un/mis-informed on the issues, I think people should exercise the rights that their forefathers fought for and vote. I'd be ecstatic if there was this much discussion about every damn election, from local to central government.
 
First of all, I don't live in the US, so my opinion can be unecessary, however, I just thought I might scribble down my opinions on this topic from what I have read from newspapers and heard from my American friends....

I really think that Bush (and more so his policies and war-mongering) have polarized the United States; dividing the country into two camps (maybe three): anti-Bush camp, pro-Bush camp, and the "don't know-camp".

The whole issue with war and the prolonging of the troubles in Iraq has somewhat made many AMericans angry and become anti-Bush.

I have also noticed that because of the Bush Administration, the war in Iraq, and the huge deficit on the economy, many Americans have become interested in politics and have registered to vote in the presidential election. This I find a good outcome of all this .. :-)
In Denmark, people who have become 18 years of age are automatically "registered" voters, and I find Danish high school and university students more interested in politics and they are very conscious of their opinions, and utter them loudly and vote for elections and referendums. Now, I (almost) see this happening in the United States, as my friends who are in my age and older have registered to vote for the first time in their life because of their strong opinions about Bush.
 
mad pierrot said:
Kerry. I'm still waiting for someone to take my bet!

:biggrin:




Remember, I do accept PayPal and all major credit cards...
Click to expand...
I don't know. I was a little surprised again today reading at CNN the number of newspaper editorals Bush received (Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, Cincinnati Ohio Post among others) from obviously highly informed sources, some who even opposed his Iraq policy but argued that changing course now would be somehow 'giving in' to terrorists or letting them see our irresoluteness. :? If that is the thinking of editorial board directors and writers, how can the average voter be blamed for letting those same factors inform their decision ?
 
People can't put aside their emotions & talk politics rationally, precisely because the campaigns rhetorics are designed to push people's emotional buttons. Stating someone has a lesbian daughter is a stake through the heart. Or lay guilt trips like "If you vote for him, America will be [fill in catastrophe of choice]."

The local paper Dallas Morning News has endorsed Bush, with justifications like "we have seen the Texas Republican in action since his...gubernatorial trail", "Though he has stumbled...always risen to fight", or "not the time for Americans to abandon their president." It's all nostalgia, for ole buddies' sake, and emotional investment. None of it logic.

All the Kerry/Edwards yard signs around here are few if any, but they sure tower over the tiny Bush signs!
 
I heard on the news in Bush's hometown people arent even allowed to support Kerry openly. o_O''

The local newspaper wrote an article about Bush's war and now they are (people who live in that place) all boycotting that newspaper...
 
That's true. The Kerry signs didn't go up (in a sea of Bush stickers, some of them cute lil' W's) until this final crunch week. It's just kinda intimidating, like not supporting your football team in their first home game in ages.

Advertisers started pulling out of the newspaper, and it went kaput...
 
Yeah! I saw it on TV, and specifically, there is town in Texas where you can buy every Bush merchandise you can come to think of (almost!). E.g. dolls, pillows, caps, pencils, stickers, beer openers........(and the list goes on). The dolls must be a real collective item!!
Anyway, the people living around the shop were all Bush supporters and almost, they loved him too.

Hehe...weird.
#
politicalgifts_1814_1556630
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top