The S factor explains Bush's popularity

[webnarc]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/155107_firstperson05.html

The S factor explains Bush's popularity

By NEAL STARKMAN

GUEST COLUMNIST

Millions of words have been written as to the motivations of voters. Particularly in close elections, as in the 2000 presidential contest, pundits and laypeople alike have speculated on why people voted for whom. The exit poll has been a major tool in this speculation.

But the speculation misses the mark by far. It's increasingly obvious, for example, that none of the so-called theories can explain President Bush's popularity, such as it is. Even at this date in his presidency, after all that has happened, the president's popularity hovers at around 50 percent -- an astonishingly high figure, I believe, given the state of people's lives now as opposed to four years ago.

What can explain his popularity? Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq? Of how he has fortified our constitutional freedoms with the USA Patriot Act? Of how he has bolstered our economy? Of how he has protected our environment? Perhaps they've been impressed with the president's personal integrity and the articulation of his grand vision for America?

Is that likely?

Granted, there are certain subsections of the American polity that have substantially benefited from this presidency. Millionaires and charismatic Christians have accrued either material or spiritual fortification from Bush's administration. But surely these two groups are a small minority of the population. What, then, can account for so many people being so supportive of the president?

The answer, I'm afraid, is the factor that dare not speak its name. It's the factor that no one talks about. The pollsters don't ask it, the media don't report it, the voters don't discuss it.

I, however, will blare out its name so that at last people can address the issue and perhaps adopt strategies to overcome it.

It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.

It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think.

You know these people; they're all around you (they're not you, else you would not be reading this article this far). They're the ones who keep the puerile shows on TV, who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards, who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things, who generally make life much more miserable for all of us than it ought to be. Sad to say, they comprise a substantial minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the populace.

Politicians have been aware of this forever; they cater to these people. They offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. They evade directed questions with non-sequiturs. They offer meaningless, jingoistic pap instead of thoughtful policy. And these people, the "S" people, eat it all up with a ladle.

I don't have a solution to this problem. To claim I did would belie my previous arguments. But I do have some modest suggestions that might provide a start for discussion: an intelligence test to earn the right to vote; a three-significantly-stupid-behaviors-and-you're-out law; fines for politicians who pander to the lowest common denominator and deportation of media representatives who perpetuate such actions.

It's well past time that people confront this issue, no matter who's offended. We are on the way to becoming a nation of imbeciles. I'm certain that a plethora of "George W. Bush" jokes is already being circulated in every capital of the world. We can stop this sapping of our national integrity but we must do it soon, lest the morons become the norm and those of us who use our brains for more than memorizing advertising jingles are ourselves ostracized from society.

Let's start talking. Let's bring the S factor out of the closet and into the daylight where we can all see it, gulp at its hideousness and finally make serious attempts to bring it to bay.

[line]

Reminds me of the People's Court web poll showing real time results of who web uses believe is telling the truth. No matter what happened, even if one of the participants admitted guilt, there would always be at least 25% of the polling population would continue to believe that they were innocent.

[Art]

It's not the stupid factor at all really.

It's the fact that more and more people are tuned out by the Democratic message. Dean says political leaders must protect white people from their own unconscious biases in hiring. Lieberman, who is otherwise sane at times, says tax cuts given to people who pay taxes is wrong because they don't need the money.

Huh. It's THEIR effing money.

Of course they need it. More and more Dems need to appeal to some greater common good without ever stepping up to make it better themselves. Simply take from others, force others, compel others, but don't, whatever you do, LIVE the life you suggest others be legally obligated to live. People see the hypocrisy of the left and given there are no real issues in which the left has strong standing on -- especially since Bush has essentially become a liberal in so many damn things -- the real issue here is there is only one party running. Bush represents both. He just does so better than anyone running from the actual Democratic party.

[Larry]

Now, I agree with this authors position, but I suspect it might've flown better if it were phrased more as a statement about politicians in general, rather than purely anti-Bush.

[Tarhog]

That encapsulizes democratic thinking pretty perfectly. Americans don't agree with us because they're not nearly as bright as we are and can't see that WE know better than they do who is best qualified to sit in the White House.

Condescending. Insulting. Oh...and wrong.

Bush is doing well for several reasons. Although the war in Iraq has been controversial, I believe Americans innately respect a President who chooses his own course and perserveres, despite criticism, particularly in light of the commonplace reliance on poll-sniffing amongst modern day politicians. He also benefits greatly from his strong post-9/11 leadership, which I think trumps any qualms some of middle America has about our handling of Iraq. Say what you will about the impingement on civil liberties, the economy, the environment, but the truth is that most Americans have felt little impact on their daily lives in these areas since Bush took office, and in fact, feel much more positive on the economic front of late.

And for some, the fact that no semen stains have made headlines is a factor as well.

I have no problem with intelligent counterpoints. But that article is pure tripe, and reeks of arrogance and disdain for the average American.

[webnarc]

Originally posted by Tarhog

Condescending. Insulting. Oh...and wrong.

It's only condescending if you support Bush, it's only insulting if you disagree and it's only wrong if you are not ignorant.

The choice of ignorance is easier than engaging the topic to learn enough about it to make a decision that truly represents your best interest; but it's their vote and their best interest.

The authors point is that Bush does not represent the best interests of the 50% the population that support him. It's a vague and unsupportable thesis, but it was less than 600 words and he did raise the point that some Americans are ignorant and will vote for reasons OTHER than their best interests. It's a valid point because these are the votes that will win elections.

[OURYEAR#56]

Bush is starting to take some hits and I feel he desrves them. I don't agree with you Hog that Bush has shown Great Leadership. I feel he has displayed the opposite. He seldoms show his face when his policies clearly exhibits a lack of understanding. When the stories leaked about Bush not knowing the true extent of Hussiens' WMD, he was no where to be found. I remeber him taking a good bashing over the division of his administration, yet again Bush vanished. I only see Bush when he has some self-grandizing oppurtunity. But I understand that's the nature of politics. Consequentially I was going to vote for Bush in the 2004 election. Now I'm not so sure. The story that was reported on 60 Minutes last night only re-inforced my suspicions that he has a very devided administration. Also the economy is not turning around. People are going back to work earning less, and taking jobs that are below their qualification. This is going to hurt him when people go to the polls in 2004. The real canundrum here is there's no Democratic canidate that I feel will run the counrty well. That guy Dean is a joke. I read the reasoning he gave for voting in favor of the War on Iraq. I just sat there and said "even if you grew a pair of nuts I still wouldn't vote for you".

[Kilmer17]

The economy is white hot right now. Sure people are working for less than they were in the late 90s. But that's not an indication they WERE worth more. It's an indication that Clintons fake economic boom was based on false earning reports and overinflated techstocks.

[endzone_dave]

Bush has a high popularity rating right now because most people are mainly concerned with the basics: providing food and shelter for their families. 6% unemployment isn't all that bad. People are getting by just fine.

People got spoiled in the late 90s being able to make $100K a year programming a router or making a webpage. Those days are gone.

[webnarc]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

The economy is white hot right now. Sure people are working for less than they were in the late 90s. But that's not an indication they WERE worth more. It's an indication that Clintons fake economic boom was based on false earning reports and overinflated techstocks.

Fake economic boom, that's priceless :laugh:. All those silly people working fake jobs getting paid fake money. And that internet thing and the explosion of IT, what a load of crap they were too. Why the fax machine is nothing but a whaffle iron with a phone attached.

Kilmer, just so I know for sure, is this real economic boom or a fake one? And how do you tell them apart.

[Kilmer17]

They were a load of crap. That's the EXACT reason that people that are worth 50K a year, think they deserve 100K a year now. Sure, at the time when Pets.com was trading for 100 plus a share when it was worth about 2 dollars a share, these companies could overpay. But that wasnt REAL.

[Tarhog]

I'd like to debate you OurYear and Webnarc, but, as the author indicates....I'm not sure you're bright enough to keep up

How about that, was that insulting? :laugh:

Take it easy guys...its all in good fun (well, for ME at least)

[OURYEAR#56]

Kilmer stop it. That excuse is really getting old. Perception is the basis of reality, and you know that. Bush inherited a nation that was spawning people such as Dan Snyder. The dot com companies were not the problem. This is a democracy founded on the idea of capitalism. You can not say that all the Dot Com companies were false and didn't follow the guideline of capitalism. These business minded people thought of an idea that people thought was profitable. A lot of people made a lot of money during this time. Not all of that money was made based on an "inflated economy". The problem now is nobody is getting rich. There doesn't seem to be a way for upward mobility. And that can not be tolerated.

[Kilmer17]

Maybe we should fake another boom.

Give me a company that earns it's money by producing products, not by promising a huge market share.

The reason it's getting old for the left is because it's true, and now more and more Americans realize it's true. And that hurts the lefts chances at election time.

[webnarc]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

They were a load of crap. That's the EXACT reason that people that are worth 50K a year, think they deserve 100K a year now. Sure, at the time when Pets.com was trading for 100 plus a share when it was worth about 2 dollars a share, these companies could overpay. But that wasnt REAL.

Kilmer, what is real? If IT and the internet wasn't, and if the job I did and the money I was paid wasn't, what is?

Or did you mean this is fake in the same way the real estate boom was fake - as in it was real boom based on a over valued commodity?

Feel free to help him out here Tarhog .

[Kilmer17]

Real Estate has value. "They dont make land".

My reference is to the IT companies that overpayed workers for years. Pets.com is one of the most famous. They were trading at over 100 a share when they had no value. The boom was based on PROJECTED market share. It was bound to fail. And it did. And when it (and the thousands of others) failed, people lost highpaying jobs that shouldnt have existed in the first place.

[webnarc]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Real Estate has value. "They dont make land".

My reference is to the IT companies that overpayed workers for years. Pets.com is one of the most famous. They were trading at over 100 a share when they had no value. The boom was based on PROJECTED market share. It was bound to fail. And it did. And when it (and the thousands of others) failed, people lost highpaying jobs that shouldnt have existed in the first place.

Ah, gotcha, you mean in the liberal bashing way it was a fake boom .

[Kilmer17]

Fair enough.

[Ghost of]

What a piece of garbage article, not for the idea that lots of people are stupid. That explains people thinking "government money" is somehow different than THEIR tax dollars, that a man's character isn't important just the economy and that a president is like the operator of the economy, that guns are only for criminals,etc.

But to use it simply to put down Bush's popularity? Ok, what about Clinton?

Another thing--from my personal experience the absolute dumbest rocks I have ever known have been either 1) apolitical--politics "bores them" doncha know? or 2) Democrats(or worse)

And let me also add--none of my three closest black friends, nor my mother or I, despite the black population being 90 percent Democrat are actually Democrats. And the friends I speak of were not chosen for their similar political views.

Another thing--check out the Democratic websites vs. libertarian or assorted right-wing sites.

This isn't to say there aren't brilliant leftists, and I've known a number of populists and mushy moderates who shared some of my views but weren't particularly bright but I don't think the left understands that just because they dominate certain aspects of the academy and the media does not make them "smarter" or more "educated" or concerned with world affairs.

Really that attitude, however accurate is what encapsulates the characters of Sauron and Saruman--evil.

[OURYEAR#56]

Kilmer,

I'm not sure who your are referring to when you said that people in the Dot Com era were over paid. Technicians deserve ever penny they make. It's a skill that has to be learned. Attorneys are trained to see issues, doctors are trained to see health problems. Computer technicians are trained to fix computers. They should get 95 an hour to fix those things. I know I can't do it. I understand where you're coming from when you say that the market was based on "percieved value". But I think Emerson said "built a better mouse trap, and the world will beat a path to your door". The Dot com era gave people the ability to make money from a good ideas. Google, Yahoo, even Extremeskins.com is an example of this. We can go back and forth on this issue. But what really concerns me, and will prompt me to either vote along party lines, or for George Bush is this: Has Bush given me the ability to realize the American Dream? Everbody dream is different, but I think everybody would like a means to experience some of the comforts of life. Has Bush given us t he oppurtunity to live without having to struggle. Reagan had the Yuppies, and Clinton had the Dot COm companies, what does Bush have, or what will he have?

[Kilmer17]

I can name 5 friends of mine who left decent jobs to work for UUNET in their sales division. They made 80 plus a year despite the fact that NONE of them had ANY experience. UUNET went after market share, not product. And when they busted, all of my friends were jobless. 1 went back to teaching for 30K a year. Now ask yourself. Which does he deserve? 30 as a teacher or 80 as a hitech salesman?

[dchogs]

OY and webnarc,

i have some tulips if you'd like to buy them.

the economy was overinflated. clinton's fault, imo no. economy corrected itself, as it always does. bush's fault- no. regardless, it does inflate the perceived worth of workers when businesses are able to overpay for jobs based on the bubble they were riding. when the bubble pops and salaries correct themselves as a result, the worker perceives an injustice. the real injustice is that IT people were earning more with limited education than some doctors were with maximum education.

oh, i worked in the IT business during the bubble .

[webnarc]

Ghost - your rock friends, who are democrats, are they rocks because they disagree with your or because they are stupid? It is as though you are implying that they are stupid because they are democrats; a position that has been voiced over and over on the board.

And lets face it, you actually agree with the article if you are saying that there are lots of dummies out there. The point the author raises is as valid a counter point; there are lots of stupid people on the planet who vote liberal.

I'll give you credit for saying that there are some moderates who agree with you and I'll take it way for you saying that they were not particularly bright.

Liberals force change that is altruistic, conservatives force change that is self-serving. The right sees the left as stupid because the left would rather look out from another groups best interest than their own. It's only stupid if you can't see how the change benefits everyone.

Kilmer - people are worth what they get paid, so $30000 as a teacher and $80000 as a sales person for the example you cited. It may not makes sense, but to blame Clinton for it is to pee on American history. Since America was created, people have been getting paid their percieved value.

dchogs - didn't you hear that the tulip market was down this year? Ahh, I'm guessing you did and that's why you asked if I wanted some. Nice, way to use thinking to try and put one over on me :applause:

[gbear]

As I read this article, the main point (though obnoxiously stated) seems to be a general reluctance to make even a passing effort to understand that other's opinions, while different from your own, may contain truth. The result of this is uninformed voters because they only ever see one side.

I can see a good example in this thread. There are some argueing that Clinton's boom was "fake" because it wasn't sustainable. It was unsustainable because it was based on inflated expectations instead of production.

OKay, if that fact is accepted, would you consideer much of American consumer spending unsustainable at current levels? How many people refinanced their houses to pay off credit card debt they are already building back up? Is our current "boom" any less fake for being unsustainable? How is a boom in consumer spending a boon long term if we spend more than we have? Won't that raise expectations that we will keep buying even though we have little equity in our houses?

As I look at things, it would seem we had one boom based on overinflated value, and now we're having one on credit. So if our credit goes bad...will this have been another "fake boom."

Possible reasons to worry about a "fake boom" could include a slow down in refinancing houses despite still very low rates , increasing trade defecits, and a dollar of shrinking value. All three reasons currently exist.

[Soliloquy]

Originally posted by OURYEAR#56

Computer technicians are trained to fix computers. They should get 95 an hour to fix those things.

And how exactly did you arrive at that number? Why not $90/hour? $50/hour? $100/hour?

Computers are rather simple. Especially if you have any kind of training whatsoever. Compensation rarely has anything to do with the amount of time an individual has spent being educated about their chosen profession. Like it or not.

Originally posted by OURYEAR#56

The Dot com era gave people the ability to make money from a good ideas. Google, Yahoo, even Extremeskins.com is an example of this.

I imagine that Blade, Die Hard, etc. would take exception to the implication that Extremeskins is a profit-oriented venture.

:doh:

[luckydevil]

Liberals force change that is altruistic, conservatives force change that is self-serving

Simply absurd. I often find it, those who scream the loudest about the conditions of the poor, the oppressed, and the weak are the ones least willing to sacrifice. It is easy to be "altruistic" when you are spending other's people money.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."