Evil Or Incompetent? : Shrub, the Anger of the Left, and How to Use It

[LoneStarDem]

Kicked and reposted for the new forum....

This is an off-shoot of this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=917051

While I don't agree with most of the reasoning of the above thread, it did remind me of a concern I have had for a while about the direction of the rhetoric on our side of the debate.

I'm from Texas (note avatar), so I have been living under the Bush regime for going on nine years now (imagine how much that sucks). Just between you, me, and the wall, I believe, have believed, and will continue to believe that, as the bumpersticker says, "Bush Is A Punk-A*s Chump". But the problem is that this isn't a universally held view and that, more importantly, there is something of a fissure in public opinion that few, notably but not exclusively here at DU, have noted. I think it has to be recognized that there is a difference in public opinion of the Admin (policies, effectiveness, etc) and in public of opinion of Bush as a person. I have noticed that his personal likeability is usually much higher than his general appraisal or his re-elects (I can't lay my hands on any recent polls at the moment, perhaps someone else can). The reason I think this is important is that it has serious implications for how we should approach the GE (and what are the primaries if not the GE preseason). While it is certainly understandable (and fun) to place Shrub out there as the figurehead for all that is sordid and wrong with this administration, and certainly it's true that come the GE it will be him versus whoever our guy ends up being, I worry sometimes that painting Bush as overly evil, particularly to lay audiences, could possibly turn people off. I think the meme (Lord Jebus help me for using that term) should not be that he is bad or evil but that he is *incompetent*. This is for a number of reasons.

1. I'm not sure it's possible to instill or inspire anger. I think that the vast majority of people who will be angry at Bush come November are already angry at him (barring some additional very public screw-up, which I wouldn't take Vegas odds on). There is the potential to work on single-issue voters, and of course generally educating the public is always a plus for us, but for the most part those have to be targeted.

2. The Mushy Middle. I'd really like to see some numbers on this. While I think that firing up the base is both necessary and good, I believe that it's folly to dismiss the non-partisans in the middle. One thing I think people miss is that while there are many independents, split-issue voters, libertarians, etc, in that middle, there are a substantial number of apolitical people that vote in presidential elections. You don’t have to “move to the middle” to get these people. These people, like the vast majority of the public, are woefully under-informed, don't watch the news, don't follow politics or policies, and don't care to. They participate and choose their candidate for a multitude of reasons. For some it's just residual civics; for others it's just the idea of a horse race. A good number, I'm sure, just go with a "gut feeling", that the guy they choose is a "good guy" or that he reminds them of the nice boy who lived down the street. These kind of people, particularly if they have a pre-conceived notion of the opposition as a "nice fella", are not going to be swayed by anger; in fact it could backfire. This is why charisma counts, and why policy arguments to the contrary don’t carry water. If you can get these people it’s a double win; you get the votes and you don’t even have to change your platform. You’re selling the sizzle, not the steak.

3. The Presidency vs. The Man. This is a corollary of Reason 2. Many people, the ones not strongly partisan in either direction, have a certain amount of built-in inertia with regards to the Presidency. People want (and should be able) to view the President as a strong leader, as someone to look up to. To be evil or bad (as a person) indicates not just action but intent. So when trying to convince a lay person that the President is wrong (particularly with regard to topics as esoteric to most people as foreign policy), you are already at a disadvantage. PNAC, BFEE, LIHOP/MIHOP, etc, true or not, cause a serious disturbance in most people’s reality-maintenance field, and given an opportunity and an excuse, most people will marginalize these sorts of points if for no other reason than to maintain their comfy worldview. I don’t believe, at this point, that we have the time, the resources, or the media access to engage in a wholesale revolution in the American mindset.

4. Focus on the Job. It should go without saying, but this entire thing is about who gets to be President. Therefore, it would behoove us to try and focus on what exactly the role and purpose of the President is and why our guy is better (by almost any conceivable measure) than theirs. Remember, we’re already fighting against incumbency. Anger is great, it gets people moving, but only if they share that anger. Anger presupposes an emotional attachment to a particular issue or issues, and if that isn’t present, it becomes all too easy to disregard. Additionally, angry or overtly aggressive politicians (think smear adds and dirty politics) are already on the average person’s version of ignore. Most people hate politics and only follow it to the bare minimum that it affects them. Focusing on anger at Bush makes it about the person that is angry; focusing on incompetence makes it about Bush. And incompetence is a much easier standard to prove.


By focusing on his failures as a President and not as a person, we can effectively separate his job evaluation from his likeability. We need to give people a reason or a cover (even if it’s just psychological) to vote against a person that they might like. I like to think of it in terms of a company (Or any position of power: doctor, lawyer, whatever a person can relate to). A guy might be a nice guy, guy you’d like to have a beer with, fun guy to hang out with; he may even deserve to be given a shot at the top of the ladder (cover for those who voted for him last time). But the proof is in the pudding. If he doesn’t do what’s right for his position, he has to be replaced. It doesn’t make him a less nice guy, and you don’t have to stop liking him as a person, but for the good of the people relying on him to do his job (in this case the country) he has to go. It also allows us to focus on his total performance and the discrepancies between his campaign promises and his follow through, not just on his current image. This is a man who has been an objective failure in every position of power and leadership that he has ever occupied; it shouldn’t be hard to prove a trend. Don’t forget to include Texas as an example to remind people that the rotten fruits of poor management aren’t always immediate, but they are inevitable.

We should start a Draft Bush movement for the President of Baseball. I can’t remember where I read it, but a number of his friends said that he never really wanted to be President and that his dream has always been to be the Commissioner. Lets let him have his dream, I just want my country back.

[gulliver]

1. Focusing on competence -- unity/consensus building

Competency as an issue is a two-edged sword of course (remember Dukakis), but I wholly agree with your point. We need to develop a list of ways that Bush fails to fill the role of the presidency.

Here's one example that I think is key: Bush has failed miserably at building consensus and unity, both here and throughout the world.

The candidates are all over this one, but they still have not struck the right chord yet. When the time comes, we need to make the point that Bush divides the world and the country. Clearly his own "I'm a uniter" petard can be used to hoist him. But the pubbies are already trying to block this by blaming Democrat "anger and hate" for the divisiveness.

That has to be countered.