Originally posted by Yago
the liberals (Libertarians, in American terminology).
Point of definition. In spite of similarities of the words, Liberal and Libertarian are functional opposite. Generally speaking Liberals in the US are in favor of political activism, ie getting the government more involved in life. Examples of this are welfare entitlements, which is state support for the poor and infirm, environmental controls, the attempted national healthcare plan, etc. Liberals have always been supported by Labor Unions and lately racial, sexual, and gender minorities, and trial lawyers.
Libertarians are the ones that think that the only thing government is good for is making trouble. Some acknowledge defense as a legitimate governmental concern, but some refuse to go that far. To these people the only good governmental office is one that has been permanently closed.
Back to the point of the thread. In spite of the fact that leaders, for the most part, have little impact on the economy, President Bush will get a huge boost from what is beginning to look like a huge growth period. After many months of slow steady growth, the economic numbers just exploded last month. After two years of bad Holiday seasons for retailers, the opposite is expected this year. This always makes a significant impact on the public mood.
The situation in Iraq is neither good nor bad as it stands now. Clearly, now that the UN and Red Cross have been scared away, the terrrorists feel that the US forces will follow. That wont happen. The difference a year makes in the attitudes of the Iraqi population concerning the attacks will tell much. Obviously there is potential for a religious war between the Shi a and the Suni. That cannot be allowed to happen, but the people must be allowed to take over some of the peacekeeping responsibilities.
Other things will surely improve. Water, phone and electric utilities will become more reliable. Jobs in the plants will become available. Commerce will settle down. The extent of the reconstruction needed in the oilfields was badly underestimated, but that is also a source of jobs. Jobs being the key here. If, in a year, the nation of Iraq is beginning to go back to work, then the situation will not hurt the reelection. If instead the unrest is high because people are unable to find work, then there is a liability. In either case, I dont think it is a dispositive one.
In 2000 George W Bush was perceived as a lightweight, running on his father's name and lacking real substance. Gravitas was the word of the moment. GWBush lacked gravitas, they said.
That image changed permanently in the weeks after the 9/11 bombing of the WTC in New York. For the rest of his life President Bush will be seen as a man who can look death in the eye and not flinch. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this in an election. Americans admire grit, almost above all things, and President Bush has it. Add the highly successful war in Afghanistan and the quick and decisive invasion of Iraq, and the public is very comfortable with this man watching the gate, as it were. They may differ with his handling of Iraq, disagree with our need to be there, complain about the mess and human cost of the situation, but they will feel personally secure, and that is a HUGE factor.
It is huge because the 9 Democrats are preaching the message of insecurity. Zell Miller, vocal critic of his own Democrat party, claims that the nine candidates are combining the worst things of the McGovern and Mondale campaigns, both landslide losses for the Democrats. He claims the message the Democrats are running on is 1)Peace at any cost (McGovern) and 2)Increased taxes (Mondale). Miller himself intends to vote for Bush, despite being a lifelong Democrat. Its a respect thing.
This is already much to long. Suffice to say, unless there is a major unforseen event, on the scale of a new Depression, Bush will crush whoever gets the Democrat nomination. Moreover, if 2002 is any example, he will also bring a fresh wave of his party to the halls of Congress. The much feared "filibuster proof" Senate, is beginning to look like a real possibility, even a likelyhood.
j
