Would it matter if George W. Bush were a robot?

Here are two pieces of (incorrect) conventional wisdom that we've been hearing a lot in this election cycle that I want to examine in the context of the national media:

1) George W. Bush is a strong leader because you know where he stands.

2) John Kerry says that he sees nuances and likes to consider all side of an issue, but he's really a flip-flopper, and will saying anything to get elected.

Something about these two lines came together for me in very disturbing way tonight when I was watching Hardball (transcript's not up yet, so these quotes are from Lexis Nexis). Chris Matthews had on John Fund from the WSJ, and Colbert King from the WaPo. It was mostly a Kerry-bashing session, which was disappointing because Matthews is generally pretty fair, but that's beside the point. Both of the aforementioned bits of conventional wisdom came into the conversation, as they often do:

FUND: But, Chris, George W. Bush has prosecuted this war by fits and starts. But the vast majority of the American people think that he is better qualified to fight the war on terrorism and better qualified to fight the war in Iraq, because John Kerry is completely incoherent. We are in Iraq. We're going to stay. The question is whether or not we win it. And John Kerry is a weather vane on this.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: And what was the best line at the convention from the president?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: My favorite best line was, well, you know where I stand.

FUND: Yes.

Pretty standard. And later in the show:

MATTHEWS: Somebody -- somebody, John, said before this race that the danger of Kerry is, Al Gore thought he knew more than everybody else, and Kerry thinks he knows more than Al Gore. And the trouble with that sort of plutocratic notion is that, if I know more than everybody else, I'll be a better leader. And I think George Bush proves that's probably not true. He's a pretty good leader, by most people's lights, whatever you think of his policies. He's certainly been a leader.

Now what people like me often say about this bit of conventional wisdom is that it doesn't matter how strong a leader you are if you're wrong and insist on continuing to be wrong -- but those two exchanges in close proximity made me want to unpack the implications of what Matthews is saying a little bit.

It seems to me that the spirit (as distinguished from the practice, which is quite different) of American democracy is something like this: there are a lot of issues. Most of the time, the majority is right about these issues, but not always. So we elect a guy that agrees with the majority of us on most things, and he makes decisions that the majority agrees with most of the time.

It's a kind of bastardized populism. Fine.

The above statements, though, make me think that the presidential election has become about something very different, something that's not usually articulated clearly. Matthews seems to distinguish between two George Bushes: 1) the person who is a "pretty good leader" and "at least you know where [he] stand[s]" (the talking point that is the entire Bush campaign) and 2) the person who has a certain set of policies.

The fact that there is such a clear distinction here is what bothers me. And what is more bothersome is the extent to which the 1st George Bush, the "strong leader," is the one that many Bush voters want to vote for.

In fact, if you take this distinction to its logical conclusion, you are left with this: that there are two criteria upon which to base a decision about the presidency. One is a whole set of policies, a range of ideological issues from abortion, to war, to civil rights, to national security, to environmental policy to education. The other is your ability to know -- and the candidate's ability to convey clearly -- whether a candidate strongly favors an oversimplified version of all of these issues. And you are left with a situation in which it's considered favorable to possess the second of these, and the first is somewhat subordinate.

(I base the notion that the policy side is subordinate on the essential style of the Bush campaign -- because isn't the "at least you know where I stand" schtick inevitably the soundbite? Isn't that really what he's running on? Doesn't Matthews buy right into it? "a pretty good leader, by most people's lights, whatever you think of his policies." Isn't that statement the very embodiment of such a point of view, in which the policies are considered only at the end of the sentence, as if an afterthought?)

As I said before, people like me often make the reasonable point that it doesn't matter if I know where you stand if you're wrong all the time. But the very fact that we have to make that point in the first place is the disturbing thing, and the fact that we're drowned out by a chorus of Sean Hannity telling us that John Kerry is a flip-flopper is even more disturbing.

And isn't it most disturbing that the being a "strong leader" and making sure everyone "knows where you stand" are somehow equivalent?!

I'm speaking not in terms of the practicalities of election-year politics, or how one can win the most votes, or how one can appeal to swing voters. I'm speaking strictly in terms of the way in which the national dialogue is framed. Because in such a dialogue, in which merely choosing a side is more important than which side you choose, anyone can be elected to any office, as long as you have a nice smoke and mirrors show and give the crowd bread and circuses. All you have to do is convince people that you're confident in what you believe. You don't even have to believe it, you just have to be a good actor. (But maybe that really does explain something about the Republican party -- especially given their current and past choices for governor of California).

If you don't buy my theory above, let's take a case study. The Iraq War. Says Matthews:

John, this question of the election being held here, which I'm more familiar with, and I think you are, too, and I think we all are, it seems to me that something has shifted dramatically in the month of August. Before August, Iraq was a plus for Kerry, generally speaking, at least a comparative disadvantage, at least. It was better for him than a lot of issues. Now it's not because the question that is posed by the pollsters is, who can best handle the situation now, not who was right, not whether we should have gone in or not, which is still a question I think comes out in the negative. People, slight majority, think we shouldn't have gone in now.

Now, it seems that a reasonable person would see a few things: 1) that the Iraq war was ill-concieved, and was even iller planned for and that 2) George W. Bush has not made a significant admissions of either of those things and that 3) not admitting those faults seems to exhibit a failure of judgment and an inability to deal with the reality of the situation.

Yet, Matthews correctly indicates that Bush is currently ahead in the polling (54% v 39% in a recent Newsweek poll) on who would better handle the current situation in Iraq. Given how difficult and disastrous the reconstruction has been, how is it possible that the president, who has exhibited that no matter how wrong he is won't change his position, would be given more still more confidence that his challenger, who is fond of reminding us how carefully he considers all of his positions?

It's possible for precisely the reasons I outlined above. Somehow, the issue of how to solve the problem of Iraq is less important to American voters than the question of whether you have a 10 word answer to the question. The real debate is subordinated, "stay the course" wins the election even when it's the wrong answer, and George W. Bush goes right on telling us that at least we know where we stand even when his positions are incoherent.

It's the fortune cookie candidacy, as someone smarter than me once said. And American democracy is getting eaten for lunch.

-- Michael

Comments

[d meyers]

I will bite. It seems you have identified two items with regards to elections. Personality (leadership, likeability, etc) and Policies.

You obviously do not like GW's policies and for that matter, Gov. Arnold's policies. That is perfectly fine, elections are where your side can come out in front of the Nation and push your policies. The problem is, time and time again voters overwhelmingly reject your policies and you do not like that one bit.

The problem is your policies are losers with the American people so what do you do? I don't know but slamming the other party is not effective. You need to figure out a way to convince the American electorate that your policies are the best policies. If you are unable to do that then you will always be in the minority. It just drives you nuts that the masses cannot see the wisdom of your policies so you lash out.

You blast current and past Gov of Calif for being actors but by what standard do you judge if a Governor is successful and has done a good job. By any measure, and the only one that matters is the ballot box, gov Davis was a DISASTER and Arnold has been effective. Of course you do not believe that but that is because you support the Davis viewpoint but the majority of the electorate rejects that viewpoint.

The Left is in total denial. Your policies are continually rejected so instead of going about convincing the people the worthiness of your policies the Left has to find the best way to fool the people into voting for them, see Clinton's New Democrat mantra.

[here's what's left]

ugh.

you say: "The problem is, time and time again voters overwhelmingly reject your policies and you do not like that one bit."

OK, here goes:

Americans favor a woman's right to choose (in most or all cases) 54 to 43 (who oppose it in most or all cases).

Americans approve of labor unions 65 t0 29.

Americans favor federal money for stem cell research 64 to 28.

63% of Americans think that the upper class is paying too little in taxes. 69% think that corporations are paying too little in taxes.

Americans support balancing the budget over cutting taxes 61 to 36.

53% of Americans believe that gun control should be MORE strict, while only 12% think it should be LESS strict.

Americans favored the Kyoto protocol 42 to 22. Americans consider themselves environmentalists 50 to 48.

Americans think that health coverage for all is a higher priority than keeping down taxes 79 to 17. Americans would support a universal health care sysem 57 to 41 EVEN if it limited their choice of doctors.

80% or higher of Americans support the nuclear test ban treaty, the land mine treaty (which the US won't sign), a ban on chemical weapons, a band on biological weapons.

Americans are divided on the question of whether Iraq was worth it: 49 to 48 in favor. But they think that Iraq has NOT made us safer from terrorism 50 to 45.

Not to mention that Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic party (54 to 40) and a less favorable view of the Republican party (47 to 45).

Those are just a few. But next time you say something like that, you should get your facts straight. Maybe you could show some evidence? Just a thought.

But, of course, and this is the important thing, that wasn't the point of the post. The point of the post was that the Bush campaign and to a large extent the so-called liberal media, and perhaps even the Kerry campaign to a lesser extent, are skewing the debate from actual matters of policy to a matter of who's a "strong leader" (your word, "personality" is too broad -- it's about something more specific). If you disagree with that claim, fine. But if I'm right, your basic statement, that "voters overwhelmingly reject your policies" doesn't make any sense, because voters aren't actually told what the policy differences are.