BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
Posts: 6,456
Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30
|
 |
« on: December 09, 2013, 03:55:17 AM » |
|
Obviously, the premise of the question is that Bush ought not to have won. That premise is probably built on at least three ideas:
Idea #1: Gore was an obviously more competent man for the job.
Idea #2: The Clinton presidency was succesful, therefore it is only logical that Gore would win.
Idea #3: Bush was a horrible president, so that ought to have been clear to the American people before the election.
As for idea #1, that is something which seems obvious to people who are either highly educated or support liberal/progressive ideals. Preferably both. This is not the case for the american people at large. Bush was in the fairly unique position of at the SAME TIME having a folksy anti-elitist appeal and having the support of the republican elite. In short, he was an elitist with an anti-elitist appeal. That's not a bad position to be in. Gore appeared as a typical liberal elitist who is "out of touch" with ordinary people. Sure he was competent, sure he was following a succesful democratic president and sure he did pretty well (winning the popular vote). I personally feel that Gore like many elitist liberals before and after him, in countries around the world, too often try to appear as someone they are not. If you are a liberal elitist, just act like a liberal elitist. Stay true to who you are. Don't try to be folksy. Remember THAT kiss anyone??
As for idea #2: Yes, Clinton was fairly popular at the end of his presidency, but first of all, Gore did his best to distance himself from Clinton, second of all, Bush embodied morals that were quite different from those of Clinton, appealing to lots of voters who regard family values as important. Third, people like change. Change happens all the time. It is no coincidence that every non-incumbent candidate is always campaigning on change. The longer your party stays in the white house, the harder it is going to be to keep it. Not JUST because people want change, but also because you'll be repsonsible for everything that is still bad in the country, you'll have no new ideas and the opposing party/candidate will probably have overtaken some of your popular positions and formulated other positions that challenge yours.
As for idea #3: In 2000, people did not know what sort of President Bush would turn out to be. He ran on a moderate "compassionate conservatism" platform, that had broad appeal to moderates from both parties and independents. He also had a pull with the religious right that other more intellectual candidates probably didn't.
|
