portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

Bush Approval Rating 73%

Bush Approval Rating 73%
The latest CBS/NY Times Poll shows President Bush at a 73% approval
rating, thanks to our amazing success in the Iraq war.

Here are some quotes from the NY Times article:

At home, the fall of Baghdad has fortified President Bush's political
standing. The poll found that 73 percent of Americans approve of his
job performance up from 59 percent the week before the war and that
his approval rating among Democrats was 61 percent.

The poll, taken over the weekend, found that for the first time since
2001, a majority of Americans, 62 percent, believe that the nation is
winning the war on terrorism.

The poll found that 79 percent of respondents approve of Mr. Bush's
handling of Iraq, the most support Mr. Bush has received on his Iraq

From a political perspective, the Times/CBS News poll pointed to a
number of signs, on both the domestic and foreign policy front, of the
difficulties the Democratic Party faces as it tries to win the White
House and Congress next year.

The nation has rallied around its president and is confident about the
state of the country, a not-uncommon occurrence at a time of war. But
beyond Mr. Bush's approval rating, a figure that typically gyrates with
changing times, the number of Americans who believe the country is
heading in the right direction has jumped nearly 20 percentage points
since February, to 56 percent. That measure is closely watched by
pollsters as a reliable indicator of the re-election prospects of an

The Times/CBS News poll found evidence that the Democrats are not in as
strong a position as they presumably would like on the issue that they
believe could return them to power the economy. Americans are exactly
divided, 42 percent to 42 percent, on which party would do a better job
in managing the economy.

And there has been a jump of 7 percentage points since January, to 54
percent, in the number of Americans who said they had confidence in Mr.
Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the economy.
We heard you -- a thousand times over 14.Apr.2003 21:29

I'm not your enemy

Contrary to popular opinion (among the Indymedia crowd), the Antiwar movement was heard loud and clear by America. Their response to the being blamed for Saddam's regmine whilst being admonished for removing it has been a predictably steady rise in support for the war.


You've managed to engange the left in a movement that benefited Bush in countless ways. At least we know who to thank for the hopelessly short-sighted agenda and the resulting second term of Conservative Republican politics.

Grow up and learn to think rationally before you do us or the Iraqis anymore harm.

Do you really think the war is "over"? 14.Apr.2003 22:19

madame defarge

You know it's only just begun. Don't believe the lies.

gee, uh, thanks 14.Apr.2003 22:44


that was really useful, 'not my enemy.' What exactly do you propose we do? Vote for Joe Lieberman? Some fucking solution.

what a FUCKING JOKE-- 14.Apr.2003 23:10


"Americans are exactly divided, 42 percent to 42 percent, on which party would do a better job in managing the economy."

plu*toc*ra*cy Pronunciation Key (pl-tkr-s)
n. pl. plu*toc*ra*cies
Government by the wealthy.
A wealthy class that controls a government.
A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
[Greek ploutokrati : ploutos, wealth; see pleu- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]
pluto*crat (plt-krt) n.
pluto*cratic or pluto*crati*cal adj.
pluto*crati*cal*ly adv.

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


\Plu*toc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? wealth + ? to be strong, to rule, fr.? strength: cf. F. plutocratie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the wealthy classes; government by the rich; also, a controlling or influential class of rich men.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996


n : a political system governed by the wealthy people
Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A Plutocracy is a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power (from the Greek ploutos meaning wealth).

The influence of wealth on governance can be expressed either via the wealthy classes directly governing, or (more typically) by the wealthy classes using money to control the government. This control can be exerted positively (by financial "contributions" or in some cases, bribes) or negatively by refusing to financially support the government (refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, etc).

There have not been many examples of a "true" plutocracy in history as such, although they typically emerge as one of the first governing systems within a territory after a period of anarchy. Plutocracy is closely related to Aristocracy  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy as a form of government, as generally wealth and nobility have been closely associated throughout history.

In the present era, there are numerous cases of wealthy individuals exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favourable legislation. Most western partisan democracies permit the raising of funds by the partisan organisations, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate institutions). Ostensibly this should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives, however it would be a bit idealistic to believe that no politicians are influenced by these "contributions". The more cynical might describe these donations as "bribes", although legally they are not.

See also:

Pareto principle (on unequal distribution of wealth)
corporate police state


"Plutocracy" Defined

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Plutocracy may also have social and cultural aspects. Thus, in Democracy for the Few  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm political scientist Michael Parenti is led to comment "American capitalism represents more than just an economic system; it is an entire cultural and social order, a plutocracy, a system of rule that is mostly by and for the rich. Most universities and colleges, publishing houses, mass circulation magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations, professional sports teams, foundations, churches, private museums, charity organizations, and hospitals are organized as corporations, ruled by boards of trustees (or directors or regents) composed overwhelmingly of affluent businesspeople. These boards exercise final judgment over all institutional matters."

The question of whether or not the United States could be said to be a plutocracy is discussed at length in Who Rules America  http://progressiveliving.org/who_rules_samples.htm by sociologist G. William Domhoff. There Domhoff remarks: "The idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people might shape the economy and government for their own benefit goes against the American grain. Nevertheless, this book argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant power figures in the United States. Their corporations, banks, and agribusinesses come together as a corporate community that dominates the federal government in Washington. Their real estate, construction, and land development companies form growth coalitions that dominate most local governments."

The argument to the effect that the US is a functional plutocracy (that is, that the wealthy exercise a preponderance of American political power) is different from, enormously better documented, and altogether more credible, than claims to the effect that there exists a small circle of conspirators bent on ruling the world, claims for which no credible evidence exists. (Domhoff explicitly disavows the existence of any such conspiracy.)


See the resource on the Bush cabinet, with links that illustrate its plutocratic nature
Go to the Essay on Politics
Go to the PL Political Field Guide
Return to the PL Site Map

Some other enlightening and useful links:

Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy

The Plutocratic Presidency, 17892003

The Corporate Domination of American Culture and Politics


A week after the "official" war ends 15.Apr.2003 02:47


And he still only has 73% in the most generous poll found. Bush Sr. had a 91% approval rating immediatly after the Persian Gulf War, and he still lost the next election fairly handily. Just because someone has "approval" doesn't mean they will be voted for.

Who Cares, there just a focus group 15.Apr.2003 07:26


First off, polls are inherently inaccurate, secondly, if they are correct, it just shows how good a job the media has done to disinform the public. Both Bush's are criminals and should be locked away for life. Bush Sr.'s name is found allied to a serious child sex scandal the likes of which are painfully documented, and for which the author has received death threats. If you look at both Bush's history, they are as filthy as slime. Jail, in fact, is too good for them.