Underground Limestone Castle

The loneliness of the long-term voter

Looking back at the introduction of this blog, it seems in need of some revision - although most people are probably insane to some degree, we saw that in our most recent election, the sides were pretty evenly split. Fortunately for us, common sense prevailed, and George Bush was returned to the White House.

This suggests that there are a lot of people out there who are doing their darndest to avoid insanity. They did not buy into John Kerry's endlessly vague proclamations of how he would make America "Stronger at home" and "Respected abroad". Even crazy people know when they're being taken for suckers, and the Democratic party, in perpetual contortions trying to re-invent itself as something to be taken seriously by Mr. and Mrs. United States of America, couldn't really define a single reason to vote for its candidate beyond the fact that he wasn't George Bush.

This was all well and good as long as you were a member of the vituperative "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" which loathed George Bush with that visceral hatred usually reserved for the likes of Nazis - but what if your concerns were somewhat less romantic, and more mundane?

What if you really did believe that terrorism was a real risk with horrifying consequences? Michael Moore, in one of his absurd diatribes which is sold as a book, downplays the terrorism threat to an infantile level, endorsing the reader to believe that "There is no terrorist threat". Although this book was supposedly written after 9-11, the myopia of the fervent left-winger apparently knows no bounds.

If you were worried about further attacks on Americans, you were told by the democratic party establishment various and often contradictory things, such as:

• There is no terrorist threat (see above).
• Even though there is no terrorist threat, if there were one, it would be the fault of George Bush and Condoleeza Rice.
• The terrorism threat exacerbated by George Bush (even though there isn't one) was made much worse by the war in Iraq.
• The much-worse terrorism threat, which is the fault of George Bush, can be solved by John Kerry, with methods left unspecified.
• If you are worried about terrorist threats, you have been manipulated by the Republicans, who have turned you into a dupe and a stooge for getting so worked up about a threat that doesn't exist, although if it did, it would be entirely the fault of George Bush, and could only be fixed by John Kerry.
• If you don't support gay marriage, you are a hick, redneck, hayseed, and a gun-toting, bible-thumper.

Okay, that last one isn't about terrorism, but it illustrates reasonably well the messages being sent to the electorate by the party that is supposedly about helping people. It's really just social engineering, but more on that later.

Faced with these messages, what does a voter do? It's tempting to ignore the whole thing, but with people taking outrageous stances everywhere you turn, there's a fierce urge to shut down the worst of the loudmouths. This is where common sense comes in, and it's what killed John Kerry's campaign.

Telling groups of voters that you share their everyday concerns while you have spent a tedious career in the senate while personally living the life of a multi-millionaire can seriously damage your credibility. George Bush is no up-from-the-bootstraps kind of guy; indeed, it was one of the biggest charges brought against him, but to pit Kerry against him is to completely miss the point. Kerry expressed irritation at the presence of secret service personnel while he was trying to enjoy a restful afternoon of skiing - what sort of message does that send? And could you imagine Bush doing such a thing?

According to the media establishment, many felt that George Bush was bad for America, bad for the little guy, bad for families, bad for the planet, bad for the poor, just plain evil, Satan, Hitler, the coming of the Antichrist, and other hyperbolic labels too numerous to list. Now, who said these things? Ordinary Joes, or people holding positions in the public spotlight? Once again: people know when they're being played for suckers.

Furthermore, the establishment basically told you that if you supported George Bush, that meant that you wanted to force women out of their careers and into back-alley abortions, you wanted poor people to rot in hell, you wanted to deny access to handicapped people everywhere, and you wanted to prevent racial minorities from enjoying any success in life. You wanted reductions in taxes only for "rich" people, as well as reduced medical care across the board, and you wanted to turn Social Security into a casino.

Those who bought into the line that George Bush should be thrown out of office at any cost tried their hardest, and failed. This brings us to a new point of wonder: in the endless ravings of mortified democrats and anti-Bush voters, where are the reports and interviews with people who actually voted for him? Think back on all the rivers of speculative ink that flowed about why Bush won: do you hear anything but conjecture from Democratic party establishment types, Democratic politicians, Democratic media consultants, and Democratic voters? Do you hear about news reports that say, "Here's a bunch of Bush voters telling why they voted for him"?

No, of course not. Maintaining the elitist view that they know what's good for everyone else, the ivory-tower types would rather glower and spit on those masses who voted for Bush, rather than take a look at their own agenda and attempt to repair it.

posted by ET @ 1:35 PM