The great deceiver: moral values
What happens when you deceive people about moral values?
I've been thinking about the exit poll results showing that people who supported Bush cited "moral values" as their highest concern. About half the country believes that Bush has lied about the Iraq war and about the war on terrorism, and the PIPA results (earlier post) bear that out.
When I ask myself why Kerry wasn't seen as the choice for people citing "moral values," I have to think about the smear campaigns. I've talked to more than one Republican who said that Bush is an asshole, and then blamed the Democrats for not coming up with someone better than Kerry. But Kerry is a moral person, right? Well, at least one of those Republicans cited the Swift Boat smear campaign as a reason not to trust Kerry--he perceived Kerry as a liar. He even said that Kerry committed war atrocities during Vietnam, having confused (I surmise) John Kerry and Bob Kerrey.
Since another problem with campaign differences is that each side insulates itself with others of like minds, including myself, I don't know if such ideas were promoted by the opposition, but I believe they were.
So I'd have to credit "dirty tricks" for the Bush win. He managed to smear the opponent so that people who were insulated from Bush discreditors were left believing that Kerry was the liar and the great deceiver.
The PIPA study discussed cognitive dissonance in the Bush supporters. Now what happens when they realize that Bush lied about the war and about being able to reduce the debt, and about the links between Iraq and 9/11 and al Qaeda, as well as lying about his reasons for going to war?
What happens when the people who voted for Bush realize that our National Guardsmen aren't trained to face opponents who use guerilla warfare? Our regular troops are only slightly better trained to fight guerillas. These soldiers are way over their heads, and it never had to happen this way. Even if you grant that we should have intervened in Iraq, based on Clinton's and McCain's support of the war, there was no hurry and no reason to send unprepared and unarmored troops. No reason except hubris.
How is that going to add to the cognitive dissonance? Will it cause the same kind of social meltdown that occurred in Nixon's second term when proof of his cover up and lies emerged? Our country is still suffering from that loss of faith in the presidency.
If Bush brought out the voters who are looking for a moral leaders, they are in for a shock. I wish them the best in dealing with it.
I've been thinking about the exit poll results showing that people who supported Bush cited "moral values" as their highest concern. About half the country believes that Bush has lied about the Iraq war and about the war on terrorism, and the PIPA results (earlier post) bear that out.
When I ask myself why Kerry wasn't seen as the choice for people citing "moral values," I have to think about the smear campaigns. I've talked to more than one Republican who said that Bush is an asshole, and then blamed the Democrats for not coming up with someone better than Kerry. But Kerry is a moral person, right? Well, at least one of those Republicans cited the Swift Boat smear campaign as a reason not to trust Kerry--he perceived Kerry as a liar. He even said that Kerry committed war atrocities during Vietnam, having confused (I surmise) John Kerry and Bob Kerrey.
Since another problem with campaign differences is that each side insulates itself with others of like minds, including myself, I don't know if such ideas were promoted by the opposition, but I believe they were.
So I'd have to credit "dirty tricks" for the Bush win. He managed to smear the opponent so that people who were insulated from Bush discreditors were left believing that Kerry was the liar and the great deceiver.
The PIPA study discussed cognitive dissonance in the Bush supporters. Now what happens when they realize that Bush lied about the war and about being able to reduce the debt, and about the links between Iraq and 9/11 and al Qaeda, as well as lying about his reasons for going to war?
What happens when the people who voted for Bush realize that our National Guardsmen aren't trained to face opponents who use guerilla warfare? Our regular troops are only slightly better trained to fight guerillas. These soldiers are way over their heads, and it never had to happen this way. Even if you grant that we should have intervened in Iraq, based on Clinton's and McCain's support of the war, there was no hurry and no reason to send unprepared and unarmored troops. No reason except hubris.
How is that going to add to the cognitive dissonance? Will it cause the same kind of social meltdown that occurred in Nixon's second term when proof of his cover up and lies emerged? Our country is still suffering from that loss of faith in the presidency.
If Bush brought out the voters who are looking for a moral leaders, they are in for a shock. I wish them the best in dealing with it.
posted by Lynn Holleman Rudloff | 8:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home