Auros ([info]auros) wrote,
@ 2004-10-23 00:06:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: quixotic

More from the reality-based community.
In yet another example of the willful ignorance of the American populace, we now have objective proof that Bush supporters are living in Cloud-Cuckoo Land. (It's short. Read it. Point it out to Bush supporters.) On five out of eight questions regarding Bush's policies, less than 40% correctly identified the president's position; two more, it was less than 60%. These weren't even questions about what the voter's own position was, or whether the voter agreed with the president on that particular position -- I know people can vote for somebody while not agreeing with them on all issues. The question was just, "What do you think his position is on X?" These people seem to be applying a syllogism that runs something like, "All good people agree with my positions. Dubya is a good preson. Therefore Dubya agrees with my positions." Never mind that both of the premises are probably wrong. :-P

Also, a significant number of Bush-supporters, often a majority, continue to believe the things that have been insinuated, rather than the truths that have been admitted, even by Rumsfeld, or Bush himself. They still think that Saddam had WMD, supported Al Qaeda, and had a hand in 9/11.

Government through illusion -- charlatanocracy? -- coming soon to a former-democracy near you.


(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]enochsmiles
2004-10-23 12:44 am UTC (link)
I'm not really surprised by this. It is the most obvious explaination for roughly half of the nation still showing support for Bush in the polls.

(Reply to this)


[info]anemone
2004-10-23 06:05 am UTC (link)
Bush governs without looking at the facts. It's not very surprising that a large number of his supporters wouldn't care about them either. (But it is pretty disturbing to see it all in print.)

(Reply to this)


[info]unseelie23
2004-10-23 06:42 am UTC (link)
Well you see, the media lies to them, so why would they believe the media?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]hukuma
2004-10-23 08:50 am UTC (link)
My fear is that they do believe the media. There was a study a while ago that people who watch Fox news are more likely to believe mistaken facts such as the ones above than people who watch other major news networks, and much more likely than NPR listeners. (Obviously, there's a large correlation between being a Bush supporter and a Fox News viewer.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]_krelian_
2004-10-23 01:34 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps it's as simple as a conservative frame of mind. Maybe people are coming to their own conclusions based on the information that everyone agress on. Saddam did at one point have WMDs, conservatives tend to believe that he still had them. Al Qaeda (or something similar or connected) was operating in Iraq - this is not surprising on its own seeing as how it is a borderless organization - conservatives jump to thinking there was a Saddam/Al Qaeda link. If you believe that, it's not all that difficult to believe Saddam had a hand in 9/11. I know it's easier to believe that conservatives are simply stupid or inferior in some way, but I don't necessarily see that to be the case...though it is probably true that many people that are uninformed are conservative by default.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]auros
2004-10-23 03:12 pm UTC (link)
*facepalm*

You're missing the point.

conservatives tend to believe that he still had them

No. Ignorant people tend to believe he still had them. Because every expert involved in inspections, from Blix to Kay to Duelfer, has consistently said that he didn't. Duelfer was even Bush's hand-picked guy to run the final inspections, and his report stated very clearly that not only had the sanctions-and-inspections regime worked, they had worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Saddam had tried to "game the system", as Bush puts it now, but he failed. He got a few shipments of conventional arms (guns and supplies for making standard rockets), and some cash. He tried to spend the cash acquiring some technology from the North Koreans, but the Koreans decided to keep the cash and not send him the tech, because they felt they would not be able to avoid getting caught.

conservatives jump to thinking there was a Saddam/Al Qaeda link

And Donald Rumsfeld says there wasn't one.

If you believe that, it's not all that difficult to believe Saddam had a hand in 9/11.

Except that George Bush says there is no evidence that such link ever existed.

This is not just being "uninformed". This is being willfully so -- ignoring news that does not fit with preconceived notions.

The problem is partly that if George Bush said the Earth was flat, CNN would run a report titled, "Shape of Earth: Views Differ." But it's also partly that so-called "conservatives" have become the equivalent of flat-earthers. When Bush produces an ambiguous insinuation that implies a falsehood, he effectively asks, "Who're you gonna believe, me, or your lyin' eyes?!" His followers opt for believing in fiction.

I know plenty of conservatives and libertarians whom I respect. You're no slouch yourself, and [info]eviladmin, a registered Republican (if I'm not mistaken), often has a better grasp of economic policy than I do. But a majority of Bush supporters do not deserve respect -- they are emphatically not members of what a Bush aide disparagingly called the "reality-based community".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]_krelian_
2004-10-23 03:32 pm UTC (link)
I was more referring to the time period right around the time of the invasion. To my knowledge, most of the polls where people thought there was a link was before we knew without a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't.

And as I said, there are probably more uninformed conservatives than uninformed liberals, by virtue of the nature of conservatism. But I wouldn't necessarily call those people blind followers of Bush...more likely people that don't give a fuck and don't want some wacky liberal to come raise there taxes or whatever, know what I mean? I mean, Bush is basically counting on those people at this point, right?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]auros
2004-10-23 03:38 pm UTC (link)
The study I cited was done just in the last month, not around the time of the invasion. It was asking about current beliefs, not beliefs at the time. The fact that these people still believe what they did then, despite even the administration being forced to admit that it was wrong, pretty much shows that they're idiots.

If they at least knew the facts, and still said, "I think Kerry's approach to the war is wrong," I would think they were making a drastically wrong analysis, but I could at least have some respect for them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]emmett_the_sane
2004-11-02 10:30 am UTC (link)
I think what you're missing is that very few people vote for a candidate. Most people vote against a particular candidate, from what I can see.

I mean, for myself, I don't know Kerry's positions on a number of issues. I do know that we agree on a few, and disagree on a lot of them. But that's not the point. He's the alternative to Bush, who I believe has committed treason, and should be brought to justice. So I'm voting against Bush, even though my gut tells me that Kerry is only about 30% better.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]auros
2004-11-02 11:53 am UTC (link)
Hmm. That still doesn't account for the fact that those who are (on your theory) voting against Kerry know far less about either candidate's positions -- and in fact, in many cases, agree with Kerry's positions more. At least those (including yourself) voting against Bush are voting against him based on a true understanding of Bush's record and positions.

I actually happen to have become an enthusiastic Kerry supporter, as time has gone on. I particularly like his articulation of the separation of Church and State, in the second debate. And I highly recommend seeing "Going Upriver", for his speech to the Senate. Yes, it all happened a long time ago, but that impassioned, moving statement of principle was made by this same man, and I believe, even if he's gotten kinda pompous, and self-mythologized as the heir to JFK, those principles are still in there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…