Possible Terrorist Attack in Britain Stopped

[Nym90]

How is it spineless for the people to vote out of office a government that had acted against the will of the people? When you decide to support a war that is highly unpopular in your country, that's the risk that you take as the leader of a nation.

By that criteria, the American people were spineless in electing Reagan in 1980, as the taking of the hostages by Iran could be viewed as a deliberate attempt to influence the U.S. election. After all, Carter had brokered peace between Israel and Egypt, and thus probably wasn't too popular in the eyes of many Muslims at this time.

[Nym90]

Well, I would think that the capture of the hostages was a big factor in Carter's defeat. It certainly wasn't the only reason, but likewise the terrorist attacks in Spain certainly weren't the only reason that the incumbent party lost, either. And as I said, the hostage capture could have been construed as an attempt to influence the U.S. elections, in response to Carter's brokering a peace deal between Israel and Egypt, especially since the hostages were released the day that Reagan took office. Maybe that was just a coincidence, but there's only a 1/365 chance...

I realize it's not a perfect comparison (comparisons never are) but it's completely unfair to not expect that terrorist attacks against a nation which are influenced by the unpopular actions of the government of that nation will cause the candidate to lose. Likewise, even though the hostage capture wasn't directly Carter's fault, it was still fair to expect it to hurt him.

The Spanish reaction was not the opposite; in both cases the party in power was punished for what were perceived as poor foreign policy decisions in the eyes of the voters. That's not spineless, that's the way demmocracy works--incumbents are responsible for their record and their actions.