Please explain the Bush administration's endurance.

[Lagmonster]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not engrossed in politics. I consider myself a normal sort of fellow, who I gets his information from television, radio, private (mainly liberal) media/information sources and websites like this one.

I've heard lots of griping about how average Americans are apathetic, media stooges, ignorant and naively buying government spin on tragedy and scandal. But I can't seem to meet one single goddamned American who IS apathetic towards the Bush administration, and of late, I've been *trying*. I can find some staunch supporters among the rich and powerful, and the poor and ignorant. And I can find a bounty of people who think Bush should be arrested and hung. I can't find anyone who doesn't give a damn. I wish I could circulate a poll asking "Would you sign your name to a document calling for the government to be fully legally accountable for its failures".

With the exception of certain media sources, I can't turn around without being bombarded with information about the American government's failure. I don't have to even hit google to see Americans keenly aware of the suffering from the ineptness that was exposed from Katrina, 9/11, Iraq, and a ludicrous series of economic and national policies. I can get it on the freaking Discovery Channel. NBC's Extreme Home Makeover, for the love of god, pointed out the US government's failure to support Katrina victims. Nobody's that fucking blind. Every morning I watch Canada AM, the most bland news program on earth, and the word I keep hearing in relation to the US government? Failure.

I hear about failure to provide sensible internal security. Failure to compose a rational or even ethical foreign policy. Military failure. Disaster recovery failure. Economic failure. Cultural failure. Failure to maintain popular opinion. Even personal failure if you count all the pedophiles and racists emerging from the ranks. If the administration could show one thing they've done well, I'd understand why they were still there. When it comes to the US, I feel like I'm standing in a crowd of millions of deaf people talking loudly about the horrors and tragedies being visited upon deaf people. Everyone agrees that deaf people are getting the shit kicked out of them but the only thing happening is everyone trying to share the message.

I keep hearing that the American people are an extremely proud and self-righteous group, yet they are allowing their country to be mismanaged. Americans trumpet their idealistic legal and political leaders and revolutionaries or social and political change, but modern leaders-to-be seem to be wary of taking up the yoke based on what's in the cart, if you get my drift.

What I'm driving towards is, as an observer, I'm getting frustrated because while I can find blind patriotism, vapid political wheezing, and vigorous criticism, I cannot uncover the underlying solid, unquestionable excuse for the fact that the US government has evaded its responsibility. It's come to the point when I read threads here, response boils down to "Oh, that rascally US government. They done it again!" as if there is supposed to be some kind of accepted consensus that Bush is the real-world equivalent of Wile E. Coyote and his ACME traps/policies can blow up in his face just as many times as they have to because that's just the accepted shtick. Is there an acceptable, easy, verifiable answer to this? Is it even possible to list the contributing and determining factors here? Is there just no legal way to do anything about it, or would a legally wounded and hunted government present a greater liability than what you have?

[Wanderer]

To answer your question.

The Republic stopped working the moment Bush stole the 2000 Election.

[Darth Wong]

Lag, you're probably not talking to a representative sample of Americans. The Americans you're talking to are people who often travel out of their own country, and these people will necessarily be far more aware of what's going on than the average yokel.

[Mr Bean]

There is a VERY, VERY simple reason(And FYI, it's not Wanderer's reason)

There are two parties in America, the Republicans and the Chickenshits, excuse me the "Democrats" By the low standard set by the Clinton impeachment, this current President has committed at least a dozen Impeachable offenses, and even under the old standard he's committed at least three that should have gotten him out on his ass and in a federal prison in short order.

However, that's never going to happen as long as the current crop of spineless pandering privileged useless hat fuckers makes up the Democrat leadership.

This is not to say, there are not courageous democrats out there, or good and noble republicans out there. This is to say those people are in the far minority, and what most people consider the worst kind of politicon is in power, those that love power, and perks not the people they represent or the country they are running.

That's almost a rant, but seriously, short of revolution and voting them out of office, there's nothing the common man can do. And if the senators and representatives they vote out of office don't do anything, then there's jack all that can be done.

[Darth Wong]

The Democrats' chickenshit behaviour can be traced in part to Clinton. He espoused the strategy of "stay in the center to stay in power", and the Democrats have been following that strategy ever since. They make an almost rabid effort to be perceived as "moderate" or "centrist" on every issue, with the result being that they appear to have no principles at all. In order to have principles, you have to be willing to take a stand on something sooner or later, and the Democrats are afraid to do that because they want to always be perceived as the "middle" of every issue.

[Lagmonster]

To answer your question.

The Republic stopped working the moment Bush stole the 2000 Election.

What does that *mean*, in legal and political terms? I tend to think about biological systems, where faulty parts cannot simply or easily be stripped out to preserve the integrity of the organism, but acknowledge that the ultimate goal of medicine is to enhance our ability to physically or chemically repair faulty systems or jury-rig them to continue to function while striving towards the goal of making it possible to replace individual parts in the most extreme emergencies. So when I look at the government I see a faulty part, which cannot obviously be removed for the sake of preserving the nation's health, but which is nonetheless ill and requires at the minimum strategic surgery and at most a transplant, and I wonder why there doesn't seem to be any accessible means to permit such repair to the nation's government.

[Sidewinder]

Simply put, the Bush administration has a very effective propaganda machine to rev up public support, and his political rivals don't have a propaganda machine comparable to that. Granted, Bush's supporters tend to be extremists and loonies, but those are the kind of people who are more likely to register to vote.

[Edi]

Part of the problem is also the way the American media is nothing but a conservative echo chamber where nobody has the guts to actually point out that the emperor has no clothes, for fear of not being invited to more White House press conferences.

Sure, you see things being pointed out that some situation or another is fucked up, but nobody asks the hard questions or forces answers out and anyone who tries is demonized. American media is so fucking spineless that octopi look like vertebrates next to them.

[Lagmonster]

Lag, you're probably not talking to a representative sample of Americans. The Americans you're talking to are people who often travel out of their own country, and these people will necessarily be far more aware of what's going on than the average yokel.

No, you're right. The Americans I talk to are Americans with higher education at the minimum. I shouldn't be frustrated, but American politics seems to be frustrating by example.

Katrina is the biggest thorn in my paw; It's a glaring instance where people traditionally the most supportive of Bush were also the recipients of the figurative fist up the ass.

[Gil Hamilton]

The Democrats' chickenshit behaviour can be traced in part to Clinton. He espoused the strategy of "stay in the center to stay in power", and the Democrats have been following that strategy ever since. They make an almost rabid effort to be perceived as "moderate" or "centrist" on every issue, with the result being that they appear to have no principles at all. In order to have principles, you have to be willing to take a stand on something sooner or later, and the Democrats are afraid to do that because they want to always be perceived as the "middle" of every issue.

The problem is that they take that lessor of "stay in the center to stay in power" without being nearly as SMART as Bill Clinton was. Clinton didn't just bend over in order to get along and stay in the game, he dealt with the other side, so some successes and some failures. In almost a Caesarian way, in his willingness to work with his loyal opposition, he overlooked that they weren't so loyal and that the Republicans would end up taking a shot at his presidency out of ideology. Clinton, however, could take a stand, again with successes and failures. Interesting enough, Trent Lott later in interviews came out with the opinion that while he didn't agree with Clinton on alot of stuff, Clinton knew how to play ball and get things do. Of course, that was back when Congress still had a tiny shred of statesmanship.

Right now, Democrats are trying to get along and are bending over because they are afraid of retribution, because the Republican spin machine has convinced them that it would be politically unwise to do anything but throw harsh language at the President. Nowadays, there is no statesmanship, either in the office of the President of in Congress. The President is incorrigibly stupid and criminal, but secure in his own sense of invulnerablity, and the Congress is either sycophantic or looking after their own ass. And the media is useless, since it long ago lost its Edward R. Murrows who would have called the government on this at the stake of their own careers.

[Mr Bean]

. The President is incorrigibly stupid and criminal, but secure in his own sense of invulnerablity, and the Congress is either sycophantic or looking after their own ass. And the media is useless, since it long ago lost its Edward R. Murrows who would have called the government on this at the stake of their own careers.

We still have Keith Olbermann, but as it stands he's our only Murrow we have

[Admiral Valdemar]

Part of the problem is also the way the American media is nothing but a conservative echo chamber where nobody has the guts to actually point out that the emperor has no clothes, for fear of not being invited to more White House press conferences.

Sure, you see things being pointed out that some situation or another is fucked up, but nobody asks the hard questions or forces answers out and anyone who tries is demonized. American media is so fucking spineless that octopi look like vertebrates next to them.

This is probably the easiest quick fix you can do, short of mass genocide of anyone with only two-digits in the ol' IQ area. I recall many well versed and travelled Americans I've met in the past often go on about the media in the US when compared with outside news, for instance, the idea that the likes of FOX News and CNN are pretty much all you'll get: that being entertaining banter, rather than actual discourse on current affairs. I've often said if they had an analogue of Prime Minister's Questions for POTUS, you'd probably get a lot less bullshit thrown your way, or rather, most people would likely see what bullshit is being spewed out by Bush already and maybe be concerned (though at barely 30% approval rating, I expect those who still back him now can never be turned).

Billy West (Fry from Futurama) had a little rant about this at the London Film and Comic Con when I was there this month. It's the first time he's been in the UK, and now he's fully converted to the Beeb's news service because he can't stand the grandstanding, America-centric crapola he's often treated to. I imagine it'd be even worse if the Internet wasn't about, since at least those who want to see outside the snow dome can stream foreign media or interact with more outside their local group easier.

The corollary though is the Internet can also be used to indoctrinate more morons then as well.

[Wanderer]

To answer your question.

The Republic stopped working the moment Bush stole the 2000 Election.

What does that *mean*, in legal and political terms? I tend to think about biological systems, where faulty parts cannot simply or easily be stripped out to preserve the integrity of the organism, but acknowledge that the ultimate goal of medicine is to enhance our ability to physically or chemically repair faulty systems or jury-rig them to continue to function while striving towards the goal of making it possible to replace individual parts in the most extreme emergencies. So when I look at the government I see a faulty part, which cannot obviously be removed for the sake of preserving the nation's health, but which is nonetheless ill and requires at the minimum strategic surgery and at most a transplant, and I wonder why there doesn't seem to be any accessible means to permit such repair to the nation's government.

Okay. Bush has admitted to violating FISA with illegal wire taps, torture, that he essentially lied to the American people, etc.

Yet Bush has not been impeached. On the other hand Clinton lied about an extra marital affair and was impeached. The difference between Bush and Clinton was Clinton harmed noone with his affair, while Bush has caused people with his actions to be killed, tortured, three nations including the U.S. to become wrecked with non functioning Government and utter insecurity. Further Bush has allowed private companies to run amuck and act illegally without much in the way of consequences.

If the U.S. system of democracy can not fix the problem by removing the asshole and his cronies who caused it, then the U.S. Government no longer functions.

If the U.S. falls apart and becomes a third world shithole soon, I would not be surprised.

[Enforcer Talen]

I think apathy is a big part of it. We see the train coming, but dont see a way to do anything about it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

. The President is incorrigibly stupid and criminal, but secure in his own sense of invulnerablity, and the Congress is either sycophantic or looking after their own ass. And the media is useless, since it long ago lost its Edward R. Murrows who would have called the government on this at the stake of their own careers.

We still have Keith Olbermann, but as it stands he's our only Murrow we have

Good news is his ratings are steadily climbing up.

[Gil Hamilton]

We still have Keith Olbermann, but as it stands he's our only Murrow we have

Keith Oblermann is great, but he doesn't really carry so much mainstream gravitas as Murrow did. I suppose its because of the different nature of media between then and now. Back in the days of Joe MacCarthy, there were ALOT less voices in televised media and those voices were alot more readily believed, since there very much was a perception of integrity (if not actual integrity) in televised journalism. Moreover, people didn't think so much in terms of demographics and markets and journalistic integrity was more of a standard, since news as entertainment didn't exist yet.

I suppose you could say that a true vox populi on television is impossible nowadays, simply because of sheer size of modern media, but the culture has changed as well. Nowadays, individual journalists can't get away with offending the Powers That Be, and what's perverse is that said Powers don't even have to do anything to make it go away. Networks self-censor on mere blips in "public perception" or "dips in ratings" or what have you, because they are interested in ratings and profit, not the news, so journalists can only be firebrands so long as their network thinks what they are saying has a stable market that won't cost them anything. Of course, you could say (rightly) that that was somewhat true back with CBS and Murrow, where Murrow ended up getting put out of business by deliberate time slot shift by CBS, but then there was there was a sense that the news and journalism was about informing the public (whether with honest news or propaganda) rather than making profit. There is NPR now which is uneffected by that, but not so many people listen or care about public radio.

[Straha]

The answer to your question as to where the vast majority of apathetic Americans are?
There isn't one. So why is there the feeling that there is? Because the people who oppose the current administration are lead by the example of the civil protests of the 60s where large groups of people, showing they would not tolerate the way the government was running affairs, were able to change government policy. No duh statement of the year: It's not happening now. And because it's not happening now people project that there must be a large base of the populace who support the government, and because the people who can be seen actively supporting the government are so small it's further extrapolated that this large base of people must be apathetic, which also conveniently explains why they can't be seen and why they'd support the administration.

The real answer? The government has gotten smarter. They know now , as the government didn't in the 60s, that they don't have to acknowledge or fight the protests because the protests can't, legally, change the government. Further, actually fighting the protests demeans the illusion of support that the government has, why fight over whether or not the majority of the people support you when you can just sit back and maintain the illusion that the majority of the people do?

And why doesn't anyone challenge the government on this? Because both the "liberal" and the "conservative" sides are, at their hearts, moralists. They both think that the government should not, and would not, be governing if it did not have the support of the people. And so, because of this, the liberals and the conservatives (I speak not of the parties, but of the people) are convinced out of either desperation and martyrdom on the former or delusional hope on the later that the Bush administration in, in fact, supported by the mindless masses.

And to answer the final question, why the hell don't the democrats say anything? Either because they believe the myth, or because they know that if they try to attack the Bush administration on this angle not only will it not do them any good (while, potentially, destabilizing public support for the government) but that they simply open Pandora's box and make it possible for the Republicans, when they are out of power, to do the same thing to the Democrats.

[Darth Wong]

The government finally figured out that the rioters, Woodstock hippies, and other assorted emblems of the 1960s were never more than a tiny proportion of the general population. Activists are always a tiny proportion of the population.

It's probably one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the general public that the Woodstock hippies were actually representative of the attitudes of that entire generation. This is the same generation which voted Ronald Reagan into power, for fuck's sake. The same one that spawned George W. Bush and so many of his supporters today.

[Patrick Degan]

And to answer the final question, why the hell don't the democrats say anything? Either because they believe the myth, or because they know that if they try to attack the Bush administration on this angle not only will it not do them any good (while, potentially, destabilizing public support for the government) but that they simply open Pandora's box and make it possible for the Republicans, when they are out of power, to do the same thing to the Democrats.

The flaw in that theory is that the Republikans have not in recent years shown any reluctance to play attack dog politics even if they are in the minority and out of power. That's how Newt Gingrich began his rise to the Speakership in the House, when he started attacking Jim Wright. Even though his party was still in the minority.

Pandora's Box is already open. Happened years ago.

[Darth Wong]

What about the hypothesis that a majority of the American public simply likes right-wing assholery?

[Darth Servo]

What about the hypothesis that a majority of the American public simply likes right-wing assholery?

What about the hypothesis that the average American is simply a moron?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

What about the hypothesis that a majority of the American public simply likes right-wing assholery?

What about the hypothesis that the average American is simply a moron?

Another hypothesis: the MSM is simply far too cozy to both Bush and the huge megacorporate conglomerates which, after all, own the media. There's simply not enough Olbermann and Daily Show to go around.

[Flagg]

Apathy, stupidity, ignorance, and greed.

[Flagg]

What about the hypothesis that a majority of the American public simply likes right-wing assholery?

What about the hypothesis that the average American is simply a moron?

There's a difference?

[Straha]

And to answer the final question, why the hell don't the democrats say anything? Either because they believe the myth, or because they know that if they try to attack the Bush administration on this angle not only will it not do them any good (while, potentially, destabilizing public support for the government) but that they simply open Pandora's box and make it possible for the Republicans, when they are out of power, to do the same thing to the Democrats.

The flaw in that theory is that the Republikans have not in recent years shown any reluctance to play attack dog politics even if they are in the minority and out of power. That's how Newt Gingrich began his rise to the Speakership in the House, when he started attacking Jim Wright. Even though his party was still in the minority.

Pandora's Box is already open. Happened years ago.

There's a difference between attack dog politics and what I'm saying here. What Newt did was repeatedly pull up ethical violations of House members and the House and show the public that the government, which represented them, was corrupt. This is done all the time nowadays, on both sides of the fence. Heck five or six years before the Jim Wright affair Newt was on the forefront of a Congressional Page Sex Scandal.

What I am talking about is a statement along the lines of "You no longer represent the American people, and thus no longer have the right to rule or represent America on the international stage." And, if you accept the democratic ideal, it's true. And I guarantee you, one hundred and ten percent, that no democrat, or sane politician who wants to rule under the current system, will ever do it.