portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government | imperialism & war

'stupid' white revolution propelled Bush to victory

The relevant question about Michael Moore's Stupid White Men, who took their revenge upon liberal hectoring and The New York Times bestseller lists by electing George W. Bush, is not whether they are white, or whether they are men, but whether they are stupid.
The relevant question about Michael Moore's Stupid White Men, who took their revenge upon liberal hectoring and The New York Times bestseller lists by electing George W. Bush, is not whether they are white, or whether they are men, but whether they are stupid.

We know they are white. Seventy seven per cent of the American electorate in 2004 was white and 58 per cent of this group voted for Bush, with only 41 per cent going for Kerry. You can already see where the election was lost.

A parallel fact: 88 per cent of black voters supported Kerry as against 11 per cent for Bush. Now cue in the most interesting observation about this election that I have seen.

Place a map of pre-civil war America over the electoral results of 2004 and you discover that Bush won in every one of the slave states and the territories open to slavery, while all of Kerry's victories came from the free states. Bush is president because he picked up Iowa and Ohio from the free states.

We know that they are men, more or less that species of the American male which, like Mao Zedong believes that power grows from the barrel of the gun.

He has a strong code, partly moral, partly secular and treats abortion as sin; sneers at gays and is shocked at gay marriage; equates morality with prayer in schools and church on Sundays; and prides himself as a tough, silent guy.

A number of such men also believe that Jesus was white (possibly with blond hair) and spoke English, which reinforces their self-confidence.

Statistics show that, across divisions of ethnicity and colour, 51 per cent women voted for Kerry as against 28 per cent for Bush, and that 78 per cent of "white evangelical or born-again Christian" voters cast their ballots for Bush against only 21 per cent for Kerry.

For 22 per cent of voters, the largest bloc, the issue that mattered most was "moral values" and 80 per cent of this segment rallied to Bush, with only 18 per cent voting for Kerry. Such moralists are not necessarily ethical, or logical.

The anti-abortionists, for instance, will change a government to save an unborn American life, but happily support a man who has destroyed 100,000 human lives in Iraq.

But are they stupid?

It is difficult and even presumptuous to dismiss a group that has recently elected the most powerful man in the world as stupid. Investing in the "stupid" vote does not make Bush himself necessarily stupid.

It might, as the results have shown, be the smart thing to do. But in dismissing the majority of the 77 per cent of America that is white and votes as "stupid", we may be missing the point.

The circumstances that have re-elected Bush owe their origins to decisions made and attitudes shaped in a process that began four decades ago in the presidential elections of 1964 and 1968.

Bush should first thank a fellow-Texan, Lyndon Johnson. When he was elected in 1964, America was riven by another of its many revolutions the challenge from the blacks for social, cultural and economic equality.

The inspiration came from Martin Luther King, but non-violence as a political weapon collapsed after his assassination. Ideologues like the Black Panthers radicalised the community.

Johnson's answer lay in wide-ranging economic liberalism that has not only lifted blacks but also eliminated the harsher levels of poverty among whites, particularly in the South and Midwest.

Four decades later, the poor are not an electorally significant demographic, which is why Kerry was constantly appealing to the "middle class".

Such upward mobility is never only economic. With housing and social stability also comes a shift in values, or if you like, "morality". While Kerry understood the economics of this change, Bush appealed to the more nuanced, more emotive and ultimately more powerful values.

Counter-offensive

And so to the second politician from that era who deserves a thank-you note from Bush. Spiro Agnew, like Johnson, is dead, although his critics will still tell you where to address a note to him.

Agnew was crude and unknown when Nixon put him on his ticket in 1968. Agnew launched an unprecedented counter-offensive against liberals with the "nattering nabobs" of the eastern media as his core target. Some 36 years later, despite the relapse of the Clinton era, the spirit of Spiro Agnew has become mainstream America.

In the 1960s America witnessed the Black Revolution. This is the White Revolution. There is a new American civil war in progress, which is one reason why the divide is so bitter, why passions are so high and why the queues at the voting booths were so long.

The two Americas have separate media, separate geography, different icons, divergent values, conflicting convictions and a single White House.

If the The New York Times is the voice of liberal, intellectual and world-friendly America then Fox News and the God channel are the trumpet and saxophone of the self-centric, hamburger-driven, aptly-described heartland.

Life might have been simpler, especially for us in the rest of the world, if America had two governments, as it had during its first civil war.

You recognise the paradox, of course. Closed minds need each other. There has been much speculation about Osama bin Laden's motives in releasing a videotape on the eve of election day.

Apart from confirming that he is alive, well and out of reach, what did Osama want to prove? Osama bin Laden is not a Stupid Brown Man. He knows what he is doing. One British diplomat put it pithily when he described Bush as Osama's best recruiting agent. Equally, Osama was Bush's most effective vote-winner and he knew it.

Therefore, four more years of war? I am not so certain. The dynamic has changed in one crucial respect. Osama may have been Bush's most effective vote-getter, but Bush no longer needs any votes. His last election is over.

A second term provides the ultimate freedom for an American President freedom from re-election. Bush divided America and the world to win. He would be foolish not to recognise the price his country and the world have had to pay for his personal glory.

It has been a victory of zealots, but zealotry is not sustainable policy, not at home and not abroad. If Bush and his friend Tony Blair believe that their war can be won in Iraq, then they need to recheck the meaning of victory. The scars of the world will disfigure America.

Bush won because middle America rose against the sneers of the elite. If America continues to sneer at the world, Bush will lose. The election is over. The conflict is not.
F for the course 08.Nov.2004 03:44

hmm

"Seventy seven per cent of the American electorate in 2004 was white and 58 per cent of this group voted for Bush, with only 41 per cent going for Kerry."


There's no way to verify anything you say above. You know that, right?

Why are you treating election totals as something tangible, when they are anything except this and closer to a collective e-programmed delusion at this point, designed to do the "convincing" that you seem to have fallen for?

repeat after me --- 08.Nov.2004 11:35

Salamander

The election was lost because it was stolen.

The election was lost because the corporate owned media refused to tell the truth

The election was lost because the Democrats are too beholden to corporate interests to say anything really compelling to the average person.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The election was lost because it was stolen.

The election was lost because the corporate owned media refused to tell the truth

The election was lost because the Democrats are too beholden to corporate interests to say anything really compelling to the average person.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The election was lost because it was stolen.

The election was lost because the corporate owned media refused to tell the truth

The election was lost because the Democrats are too beholden to corporate interests to say anything really compelling to the average person.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More women voted for Bush than men 08.Nov.2004 14:45

The Truth

Typical of liberals to blame men for problems that are more the fault of women.

Fact: more women voted for Bush than men.

Over 53% of voters are female. White women voted for Bush at a higher rate than white men. The soccer moms determined yet another election (yes, I know the election was stolen by Bush's side).

keeping us divided and conquered 08.Nov.2004 20:54

naughty peasant

Okay y'all,
people are stupidized. And it ain't a "white" thang; white is a symptom, not the heart of the situation.

A lot of people are working overtime to try to keep us divided in as many ways as possible. Hyped up. Against entire groups.

Not wanting us to see the heart of the matter.

I see the heart as fear. Fear that has been institutionalized. Created in times of scarcity and heavy shit (i.e. dark ages). And passed down, coercively, to all sectors, all classes, via the "normal" coercions of compulsory schooling.

The most severely alienated called "elites" get their own version, isolated as each of them are when they are kids, told that they must adapt To The Way Things Are and Take the Controls passed on to them. If they do not play, or will not, their "elite" parents have many ways of Seeing That They Do. Such as military school, or psychiatric "hospitalization".

Yes, we have it worse, but if we do not see how they are victims as well--victims of perpetually passed-on MINDSET--we will never evolve from OUR STUPIDIZATION! And we will PERPETUATE WAR.

All "normified", domesticated "citizens" learn to wear psychological armor, which can become fortresses. And these fortresses will never be liberated/evolved until we can bridge with each other in meaningful ways!

I can think of one meaningful way as being RADICALLY excellent with each other. Others will want to engage in fist-fights or such combat, to truly trust.

But we must basically *see the value* of being radically human. Of PULLING TOGETHER OUR ORIGINAL DESIRES FOR JOINING IN WITH THIS MOTION and listening to those excellent ideas/ideals!

Perhaps you can decipher something valuable from this?
If so, do pass it on!