|
Edited on Tue Jun-22-04 10:27 AM by Tom Rinaldo
It's a grit over glitz election year, and the grit this year is sand. Incumbent Presidents lose when something big goes very badly. Carter went down to defeat in 1980 with those helicopters in the desert. When the Iranian hostage rescue mission failed, so did his reelection attempt. The world was a scary place that year, and many thought Carter wasn't up to the job (they were wrong). Later, in 1992 Bush the Elder rode a bad recession all the way down into retirement, as economic numbers kept deteriorating throughout the campaign.
This year is more like 1980 than 1992. The economy is in trouble, but it was in 1980 also. Unlike 1992 though, the economy wasn't the big story in 1980, and it isn't this year either. While our economy was losing three million jobs, Bush's approval ratings rose. Now, after a million plus jobs have been "recovered", his ratings are falling. It's the War, Stupid.
When Bush left for Europe to commemorate D Day, you could just see him reaching for Winston Churchill's legacy, with his talk about facing down the Nazi's with the determination we must now show in confronting terror. Then Reagan died, and Bush returned to Washington grabbing at a more convenient legacy; Reagan confronting the evil empire.
America is an optimistic land, so all political speeches evoke the American Spirit of overcoming adversity to create a brighter future. In a glitz year, they take on the tone of celebration. They brag, they swagger, and they even wax poetic. In a grit year they warn that the American dream is endangered, that our children may not enjoy the same comforts freedoms and security that we have come to expect for ourselves, unless voters make the right choice on Election Day.
In a grit year Americans respond better to straight talk than they do in a glitz year. 1984 and 1996, and even 2000, were glitz years. 2004 is a grit year. People are worried about the future, and they want to hear more than slogans, they want to see more than imagery, they want to feel more than uplifted, they want to feel safe. They are worried about security and they want to know if their President can provide it.
The Public believes Bush is resolute in fighting terror, and they know terror must be fought. Words and phrases carry meanings. To be resolute is good, to waver is bad. Bush has already won half the battle of perceptions, people know he is ready and willing to lead us. The issues that will determine this election are whether Bush truly knows where to lead us, and if so, is he capable of getting us there? It will come down to a reading of character and abilities. Which team, Bush's or Kerry's, can be trusted to level with the American public? Which team really knows what it is talking about, and is not afraid to say so?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
