Why Did George Bush Win the 2004 Election - Case Study Example

Why did George Bush win the 2004 election?   In spite of criticism the world over, especially the growing concerns of American society about the number of American soldiers killed on deputation in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush went on to win the 2004 election. The win, by a narrow margin, perplexed many a political analysts. In this essay, we attempt to probe the same question- What were the factors that led President George W. Bush to his second term in the office. The role of media was speculative, to say the least. While exit polls were largely skewed in favour of the Democrats candidate John Kerry, the outcome sent back Bush in office. As The New York Times prefers to put it, ‘news organizations were shaken by their misplaced faith in polls before the New Hampshire primary; they were humbled in 2004, when early tracking polls mistakenly suggested that Senator John Kerry would defeat President Bush’.1 While only sixty percent of US citizens above the age of eighteen voted in the 2000 elections, the participation increased to a significant sixty-four percent in the 2004 elections as reported by the US Census Bureau.2 In the beginning of the general election campaign, i.e. in the period of the national conventions (July) until September first week, public opinion about the reelection of President Bush was divided but tilted slightly in his favor, the reason that the pre-campaign opinion was divided can be attributed to the nature of recent trends in American politics. James Campbell (2005) suggests that this divided political opinion is a result of an evenly divided and party-polarized electorate. Campbell says that when individuals feel a strong liking for one political party, its candidates and policies, and feel strongly against the opposition. He admits in his study that though it remains to be verified exactly how divided public tends to be over policy issues, it is certain that there is a sharper divide in the electorate since it was observed last in the 1960s.3 The many reasons that played to Bush’s advantage in the 2004 elections have been described below: Bush’s strategists focused on creating a kind of fear psychosis on the American people, and did so cleverly, that the fear confounded each of the important vote banks in ways individually relevant to them. For example, Bush’s evangelical approach in his first term, against stem cell research, abortions and gay marriages had appeased the religious conservatives. In spite of the dividing opinions on the fiasco of the war on Iraq, the religious minded were encouraged to vote for him for the second term in hope of a consistent pro-religious approach, but importantly, fearing the reforms that Democrats promised in terms of medical research (by promoting stem-cell research and the like) and their stand on homosexuality that was expected to bend openly in favour of human-rights issues, unlike under Bush’s administration. Bush benefited by the fear psychosis also with a terrorized America that had still not gotten out of its fear of 9/11 and not able to take a decisive stand on President Bush’s role in the war on Iraq that was already beginning to be much criticized the world over in the pre-election time. However, those who were unsure, must have seen it better to play safe and go with the ‘saviour’ than opt for Democrats, their stand against terrorism was again not as clear as their criticism of Bush’s mistakes. Further, Bush was backed by a very powerful and rich lobby. We shall now look at the various factors that helped him win the 2004 elections in detail. A documentary called Bush’s Brain, by filmmakers Michael Paradies Shoob and Joseph Mealey offers a detailed account of the many able brains behind George W. Bush's political career. The focus of this documentary is largely to follow the career of Karl Rove, a political strategist who has been described as having a "junkyard-dog approach to politics." from his high school days when he was involved in an infamous incident aimed at maligning the Democrats, till his participation in campaigns for his candidature for the governorship of Texas, to his presidential campaign.4 The success of Bush’s presidential campaign in 2004 can be largely attributed to an immaculate strategy planned by his advisors, most notably- Karl Rove. Rove literally became the face of the White House's outreach to the evangelical Protestants and other "people of faith" whose role in pushing Bush back in office for the controversial second time in 2004 was more than significant. Conservative leaders have testified that Rove was ‘unfailingly attentive to their concerns and complaints’. His influence over Whitehouse decision was so expansive, that he was ever referred to as the ‘de facto domestic policy chief’. His influence went beyond major and minor policy decisions (be those on tax cuts, steel tariffs, stem-cell research or private investment accounts for Social Security) but he was also thought to be the mastermind behind a campaigning and governing philosophy that saw the real and direct application of core policies in politics. Rove’s role played an indispensable role in mobilizing the Republicans' conservative base by his efforts to recognize the issues that were usually thought of as socially conservative but could also help attract swing voters, like Roman Catholics and Latinos, (whose reactions to social welfare programs in relation to abortion and homosexuality were ambiguous) Rove outlined his and the president's goals for the campaign that included the goal to win the popular vote decisively, add to the Republican majorities in Congress, and to increase Bush's vote share from Roman Catholic, Hispanic and black voters. Though some Republicans were thought to have expressed concern that Rove risked alienating moderate voters by appealing so hard to the president's conservative base on questions like same-sex marriage and abortion, the outcome of the 2004 elections suggests he hit the bull’s-eye as far as campaign strategy was concerned.5 Early in his first term at the office, President Bush issued an executive order creating a faith-based initiative office. A research paper published by N. Firoz and W.E. Matthews (2003) says that the history of the separation of church and state in the United States dates back to the Constitution's First Amendment in which the freedom of religion was adequately highlighted. The paper tried to throw light on Bush’s faith-based initiative, its method of implementation along with raising a serious concern that such an initiative was likely to violate the Constitutional separation of religion and government. The paper raised another concern, by asking how the initiative was expected to affect the religious organisations and the charities it was supposed to help. The more important question, however remained if after the acceptance of the initiative, the separation between religion and the government could be maintained, and if the initiative was important enough to benefit the American society as a whole.6 This religiously pro-active step taken by the Bush administration in its first term was thought to have gathered a lot of support from conservatives and religious-minded Americans. The role of America has long been condemned by Europe in particular given its open adherence to a religious background. America is a more religiously adherent nation than any other developed democracies in Europe. This prevalent religious sentiment has strongly influenced the stance of governments with regards to policies. One reason for Bush’s win in 2004 could well be attributed to the conservative, religious minded middle-aged and old voters to whom he must have seemed as the ultimate saviour of mankind, fostering the cause of the God against terror (largely assumed to be perpetrated by people of another religion) and other issues like family planning and medical research. Bush rode the tide of a strong religious sentiment against abortion and medical research, especially with regards to stem cells. Bush appeased the conservatives in more ways than one. His ideas against homosexuality also earned him praise from the conservatives. At a White House news conference. President Bush conveyed his opposition to homosexuality, and expressed reservations about extending marriage rights to homosexuals. He said he believed a marriage was “between a man and a woman” and that he thought it essential to codify the same somehow. "The president has taken a courageous stand in favor of traditional marriage at a moment in American history when the courts are conspiring with anti-family extremists to undermine our nation's most vital institution," said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition. A number of states have passed laws forbidding gays from marrying or barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state. The federal government's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act affirms that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.7 Moreover, the fear created in the religious minded American public also had a deep relation between the growing bitterness of Islamic nations and their perceiving of America as an anti-Islamic nation. This worked both to aggravate their fear against terrorism and also their adherence to religious sentiments. Iyanatul Islam (2006) notes that the infamous 9/11 terrorist attacks were the only international development post World War Two, that played a key role in gathering support for the nation known to be criticised for its unilateral stands. However, even this kinship could not last long and Europe’s participation with the United States in shaping a global agenda of multilateralism failed to proceed due to America’s insistence on its unilateral, dominating tone and rhetoric under the leadership of President Bush administration even after the massacre of 9/11. This angered its allies and led to justifiable fears of unrestrained US unilateralism and diluted its ‘soft power’. Such an anti-American feeling was particularly evident in the Muslim world that sees current US policy as an attack on the world of Islam.8 There was a clever manipulation of the key campaign issues that were chosen to be highlighted and to be swept under the carpet for the 2004 elections. In a research paper, John Podesta (2003) says that Bush and the administration deftly controlled the congressional calendar to draw more attention on Iraq and the Department of Homeland Security, thus evading any discussion on the weak economy.9 Evidently, one of the chief tactics of Bush was to impose upon the world in particular and the American public that his pro-active role in announcing a ‘war on terror’ only meant America’s commitment to counter terrorism at any cost. He rode on public sentiments that were plagued by more negative emotions than positive. Before 9/11, America was never such a direct target of terrorism. The 9/11 attack sent a strong message to the American political psyche which has long has a much interfering past under the pretext of being the powerful, conscience keeper of the world. Bush employed as many angles as he could to justify the need of war in Iraq. He banked on getting favourable public attention by linking the Iraq issue with those cultural and social points of interest that the public find easy to identify with. Sports was also one such factor that Bush associated with his active justification of waging the war on Iraq. The study titled ‘The Politics of the Pitch: Claiming and Contesting Democracy Through the Iraqi National Soccer Team’ by Michael L. Butterworth (2007) says how he sought to capitalize on the unexpected success of the Iraqi national soccer team during the 2004 Summer Olympics. The Bush campaign produced a commercial that aired during the two weeks of Olympic coverage, in which Bush was credited with spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world. Simultaneously, the president claimed that Iraq's participation in the Games was possible only because of American-led action that had toppled Saddam Hussein. Rather than accept this narrative, many Iraqi athletes and citizens responded with anger and resentment towards the United States. This analysis demonstrates the extent to which sport metaphors are implicated in the contests over democracy. Moreover, it suggests that critics must engage the discourses of sport as they articulate with politics in an effort to recover the democratic potential of each.10 Margaret E Farrar and Jamie L Warner says in their study titled Spectacular Resistance: The Billionaires for Bush and the Art of Political Culture Jamming’, published in Polity that the role of billionaires and high weight people in elections is so over powering, that most election issues are decided, discussed and proposed to public in accordance with their long-term profit earning perspectives. Thus the participants are reduced to spectator-voters rather than engaged as active citizens in the political process. President Bush also had a strong backing from various powerful lobbies, more specifically; the oil lobby and it may be so that the voters were sufficiently confused to divert their attention on wedge issues than concentrating on those which brought the shortcomings of Bush’s performance as a leader in the forefront.11 Moreover, it was observed that those nations where royal families are still in power, or close to it, like Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, and Bulgaria seemed to be less vocal about the war waged on Iraq than countries like Germany, France, and Russia. An American Free Press report points out that the U.S. mainstream media fails to mention that Bush is actually related to the royal families of those European states where his policy on Iraq is supported. In fact, Bush has more ties to European royalty than other president to date, having “blue blood” from both his paternal and maternal lines. 12 Thus, all the above arguments suggest the reasons that enabled George W. Bush to win the 2004 elections and get back in the office for his second term. sReference: 1. Stanley, Alessandra, ‘The TV Watch; Burned Twice By Bad Polls, Networks Try Restraint Top of Form’, The New York Times, published: February 6, 2008 , viewed on May 10, 2008, URL: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E6DA1E3FF935A35751C0A96E9C8B63 2. U.S. Voter Turnout Up in 2004, Census Bureau Reports  Anonymous.  Black Issues in Higher Education.  Reston:Jun 16, 2005.  Vol. 22,  Iss. 9,  p. 9 (1 pp.) 3. Campbell, James E., ‘Why Bush won the presidential election of 2004: incumbency, ideology, terrorism, and turnout’, Political Science Quarterly, published on June 22, 2005, viewed on May 10, 2008, URL: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12107560_ITM 4. How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential by James C. Moore and Wayne Slater; the film was shown at the 2003 South by Southwest Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide URL: http://www.greencine.com/webCatalog?id=107262 5. Purdum, Todd S. and Kirkpatrick, David D., 2004, Campaign Strategist Is in Position to Consolidate Republican Majority, The New York Times, published on November 5, 2004, viewed on May 10, 2008, URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/05rove.html?_r=1&oref=slogin 6. N. Firoz; W.E. Matthews, ‘President George W. Bush and his faith-based initiative: Creative solution or political minefield?’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Volume 8, Number 1, February 2003 , pp. 43-58(16), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., viewed on May 10, 2008, URL: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=George+Bush+and+religion&title_type=tka&year_from=2003&year_to=2008&database=1&pageSize=20&index=5 7. ‘We ought to codify that', CNN.com, published on October 28, 2003, viewed on May 10, 2008, URL: URL: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html 8. 'Iyanatul Islam, 2006, Anti-Americanism in the Muslim World, Edited By Brendon O'Connor, Martin Griffiths, The rise of anti-americanism, Routledge, page 70, viewed on May 10, 2008, URL: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=8DvkLLVwEXMC&pg=PA68&dq=george+w+bush+religion+and+european+%22anti+americanism%22&psp=1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0&sig=nEn65_dcPuTMAO8B2aYN881jtcA 9. John D Podesta, 2003, ‘U.S. election’, The International Economy.  Washington: published winter 2003.  Vol. 17,  Iss. 1,  p. 20,22   10. Butterworth, Michael L., The Politics of the Pitch: Claiming and Contesting Democracy Through the Iraqi National Soccer Team’, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Volume 4, Number 2, June 2007 , pp. 184-203(20), Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group URL: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=george+W+bush+and+war+on+iraq&title_type=tka&year_from=1998&year_to=2008&database=1&pageSize=20&index=9 11. Margaret E Farrar and Jamie L Warner, Spectacular Resistance: The Billionaires for Bush and the Art of Political Culture Jamming’, Polity, URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/polity/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/2300104a.html 12. Bollyn, Christopher , ‘The Oil Monarchs: George W. Bush and his Royal Kin’, American Free Press, published on March 3, 2003, URL: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=553 Read More