Because the contest between Bush and Kerry was advertised – and so perceived as the most important election of our age, voter turn-out was one of the highest in American history. I suppose this bears enough resemblance to truth, as far as its importance is concerned; although perhaps not quite in the way most people might think. It is true that any presidential election is important, in so much as a president substantially shapes (actively and passively) the course of America, and, by extension, the world. But I dare say that the 2004 Presidential debates were — for the most part - a farce. And subsequently, therefore, the election was a farce.
The debates were so contrived and superficial that they became almost devoid of any significance beyond that of spectacle. It was as much of a debate as the cable TV show Crossfire may be thought a debate. Like so much of what passes for news these days, these debates were converted into entertainment, sensationalized and sanitized for our “protection”.
In our dualistic tendency/fallacy, we were collectively led to believe that only two choices for president existed: either George Bush or John Kerry. An impression promoted and encouraged by the mainstream media. It is as if our thoughts, feelings and decisions are being manipulated by controlling what information we have access to.
If you were going to vote at all, your only viable options were presented as Republican or Democrat. Third party candidates were effectively driven into non-existence in this election. The Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik, was banned by both Republicans and Democrats, and was arrested for requesting inclusion. Why? Was he that much of a threat to their power plays? Were they that insecure of their own bargaining positions?
In continuing the theme of oversimplification (something that President Bush particularly excelled at in the debates), this election was reduced to and defined by two primary issues. Or, more accurately, one issue — FEAR, with two subcategories consisting of terrorism and homosexuality. Both fundamentally and practically non-issues. So, essentially this election was directed and decided by scare tactics.
However, the chances of Anti-American terrorism from abroad hitting home over the next 4 years is maybe 50%, while the danger of domestic turmoil is near 100%, but that's just my opinion.
Yet Bush’s only “substantial” platform was the crusade— I mean, WAR -- on terror.
War and terrorism is virtually all he talked about, and feebly at that. But that’s all those controlling the election would allow discussion about. Indeed, almost every topic in each segment of the Presidential debate trilogy focused on, or was deliberately associated with, terrorism and the war on it.
A people made afraid are more likely and willing to surrender their liberties and submit themselves to the dictates of some authority, under the guise of protection and national security. To quote Ben Franklin who was, if you recall one of America’s Founding Fathers : "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
Which is exactly what I think happened here with Bush being re-elected.
Please, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not a Liberal loony, indiscriminately Bush bashing. For the record, I am politically (and religiously) non-denominational; voting for whomever seems best suited in my estimation (rather than voting habitually — a pet peeve of mine). I voted for Bush the first time around; but he no longer impresses me, and Kerry never really did, although I slightly prefer him to Bush.
This election, I went Libertarian as a matter of principle. But I digress.
Only cursory attention and mention was given to other “lesser” matters in the 2004 debates. Such as education, environment, infrastructure, employment, economy, healthcare, government spending, taxation, government size and involvement, national morale and zeitgeist.
Take away the topic of this war, and Bush has nothing; and neither did the debates.
As far as I can tell, this is the first election in a long time in which character was not a featured issue in the debates. As if character has ceased to matter.
To occasionally break from the repetitive monotony of war talk, other irrelevancies were brought up: gay marriage-- *gasp* the horror(!), Kerry’s military service, Bush’s poor public speaking ability, and Kerry’s alleged inconsistency.
Becoming another source of monotony; which is to say, that these debates were very redundant, merely repeating and rephrasing the same issues.
Presumably on the notion that a thing repeated often and forcefully enough comes to seem true, the audience is brainwashed, so to speak to think, “All they ever talk about is this war, so it must be the most important — in fact the only matter facing this nation that we should consider. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Regardless of the (im)propriety of this so-called war on terror, we neglect domestic issues in favor of foreign policy at our peril.
And, seriously, are Bush and Kerry really the finest candidates this country has to offer the Presidency of the United States of America?
Maybe this is just me being idealistic again, but shouldn’t the President be a Great Man, with a capital GM? And shouldn’t they, as such, inspire us — individually and collectively to greatness? I certainly don’t see that quality in either Kerry or Bush. As W.B. Yeats mused in his poem Second Coming: "And what rough beast, it’s hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
Because the contest between Bush and Kerry was advertised – and so perceived as the most important election of our age, voter turn-out was one of the highest in American history. I suppose this bears enough resemblance to truth, as far as its importance is concerned; although perhaps not quite in the way most people might think. It is true that any presidential election is important, in so much as a president substantially shapes (actively and passively) the course of America, and, by extension, the world. But I dare say that the 2004 Presidential debates were — for the most part - a farce. And subsequently, therefore, the election was a farce.
In our dualistic tendency/fallacy, we were collectively led to believe that only two choices for president existed: either George Bush or John Kerry. An impression promoted and encouraged by the mainstream media. It is as if our thoughts, feelings and decisions are being manipulated by controlling what information we have access to.
Yet Bush’s only “substantial” platform was the crusade— I mean, WAR -- on terror.
War and terrorism is virtually all he talked about, and feebly at that. But that’s all those controlling the election would allow discussion about. Indeed, almost every topic in each segment of the Presidential debate trilogy focused on, or was deliberately associated with, terrorism and the war on it.
Presumably on the notion that a thing repeated often and forcefully enough comes to seem true, the audience is brainwashed, so to speak to think, “All they ever talk about is this war, so it must be the most important — in fact the only matter facing this nation that we should consider. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Regardless of the (im)propriety of this so-called war on terror, we neglect domestic issues in favor of foreign policy at our peril.
