This is a partial response to Dan Darling's post on the 2004 election, which was a response to my post Sliding Down the Polls. We seem to be relegated to using our blogs to carry on the dialogue because of limitations of our comment facilities. As a prelude to my response, I think Dan and I are focusing on somewhat different mechanisms that may interactively reinforce one another.
My general comment about the Dean phenomenon is that I don't think Dan's reasoning excludes mine. He has chosen to focus on some tactics that have been used to bring down Dean, and I've focused on a fundamental attitude that made the tactics potent, or inspired them in the first place. Dean's Achilles Heel is that he was connected to a "recessive trait" in American politics (the literary, counter-enlightenment-transcendentalist-influenced romanticists), without the slightest idea about how to deal with the "dominant trait" (Lockean "Americanism" as identified by Tocqueville, Lipset, Ladd, etc.). Dean is out of touch with the deep currents of self-identity in the US public, which is probably the price for being hyper-sensitive the inherently marginal opposition. It is a typical error among left-leaning US politicians to translate the dominance of counter-enlightenment ideology in most of Western Europe into a potential for an effective political movement here. They mistakenly see our Lockean commitments as surmountable, without realizing that if they were surmountable the entire fabric of the nation would probably unravel.
I have somewhat the same comment about your observations regarding the decline in Bush's poll numbers with the caveat that he is somewhat more attuned to Americanism, so is therefore a little more immune to violations of our defining ideology. He's not completely immune, however, and to the extent that some of his policy prescriptions (the deficit mainly) have alienated part of his base he can be injured. He's also theoretically vulnerable to a charge of elitism, which runs counter to Americanism, but since he has no viable opponents who can credibly make the charge, that flank is covered. The immigration issue really cuts both ways, but since Nativism really isn't part of the American Ideology; even though it's a recurring theme in US politics (but has never won an election for anyone) I don't think his policy position is inherently dangerous to his election strategy.
I take your point about some of my brief descriptions of relevant memes, particularly the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection regarding 9/11. The issue is really "ecological" anyway, and I think we agree on that.
The problem is that the cumulative effect of these memes is only going to be on the people who were inclined to believe them to begin with. Most conservatives are not going to, if for no other reason than that the identities of the most of the people making them. As for liberals, a sizeable majority of them (or at least the radicalized base) was ultimately not going to back any move Bush made against Iraq for the simple fact that he was the one making such moves.
Well sure, the ends of the spectrum are set, but the middle is wishy-washy (and I just had a sparkling revelation about where that term comes from). Right after 9/11 Bill Bennett said that the "moral clarity" of the moment would fade, and that American resolve would be tested. I guess I'll have to scrounge around for a poll with appropriate crosstabs to support my theory that the memes are having a cumulative effect on some of the folks in the middle. But I think the data would probably bear that out.
I think we agree that the Bush team is playing a little "rope-a-dope," and it looks like they have something on the end of the line. But I also don't think they're aware of the effect of unanswered or inadequately answered charges. There's a fairly plausible theory about cognitive processes in voting behavior which holds that people initially form their opinions based on facts and logic, but once formed they "throw away" memories of the logic and facts that led them to the conclusion. Once that happens it may take a huge effort to get them to change opinions, because they no longer recall how the opinions were formed. They're basically conserving resources. And there's a lot of research to support the contention that this cognitive process is quite real.
My theory is that in the heat of a campaign you have 24 to 48 hours to neutralize the effects of disinformation. After that point has passed, the effort is futile and your best bet is to distract attention. The failure to respond to those human cognitive limitations is mostly what brought John McCain down in South Carolina. He simply waited too long to respond to a series of false charges by Bush during the televised debates and in some "unsanctioned" mailers. And, of course, McCain wasn't savvy enough to keep from alienating religious conservatives who were clinging to him with their fingernails.
To briefly summarize, I think we're focusing on somewhat different mechanisms which take place at different operational levels, and they probably interactively reinforce one another. As a general proposition I'd say that Bush has greater immunity from violations of Americanism than his opponents. The Democrats can theoretically take advantage of his vulnerabilities, but because of their own obtuse biases they're unlikely to even perceive the opportunity.
Posted by Demosophist at February 12, 2004 11:07 AM | TrackBack