If the Far Eastern media can be trusted...

...George W. Bush appears to have been re-elected as president.  Let the weeping and wailing (...from the Democrats, I mean) commence...

(Speaking of which, it is kind of morbidly interesting to check out how the (many) left-leaning blogs have reacted to the outcome of the election--sort of like the fascination with seeing the results of an accident as you're driving by.  'Weeping and wailing' doesn't quite do it justice...) 

If you can excuse some admittedly amateur political analysis, let's discuss some of the reasons why President Bush was able to win re-election.  Or--phrasing it differently--why John Kerry was not able to win:

[Note: BoD is (still) not a political blog, which is why I'm deliberately posting this after the election instead of before...]

There's no question Pres. Bush has been one of the most despised presidents in recent times--Kerry's primary supporters throughout the entire campaign, in fact, came to him not because of who he was, but because he was Not Bush. (Those people even created an acronym for themselves...ABB--Anybody But Bush)

Raw hatred and 'anti'-ism can only get you so far, however.  A while back I discussed the inherent weakness of 'anti' attitudes (in a discussion of religion and the LDS Church at the time) because the raw negative emotions can only last for a finite amount of time.  In the end, it's not enough just to be anti something--you have to eventually present a viable alternative--the pro side. (As said the Frenchman in "South Pacific":  "I know what you are against, what are you for?)  And this is, in fact, at the heart of why Kerry lost:  the anti-Bush side was strong enough, but the pro-Kerry side was not.

For example, it's natural and understandable to complain that there's no 'accountability' in the Bush administration--they don't admit their mistakes, nor seem to take responsibility for them.  However, it is a fact that in today's political environment--on both sides--idealistic buzzwords such as 'accountability' and 'responsibility' are nice ideas but have been absent from modern government for decades.

No government official is going to easily admit a 'mistake', no matter how obvious, because they know it will instantly be used against them by the opposition party.  A Democratic administration under John Kerry would be no different--both parties know admitting mistakes is like blood in the shark tank.  Politically speaking, it's far better to be stubborn and stand your ground, than directly give your opponents material to work with.  Is this 'right'?  No, but that's the day-to-day reality of the two party political system we have...

Would you like the President of the United States to be a man (or woman) of unimpeachable integrity and honor?  So would I...but the election wasn't between Bush and Mr. Perfect--the abstract ideal of what a president should be--it was between Bush and Kerry...and unless you could demonstrate that a Kerry administration would be significantly more 'responsible' and 'honorable' than the Bush administration, and not just politics-as-usual-just-with-a-different-animal-on-the-banner, then the 'accountability' issue isn't going to matter in the end.

The same goes for "The Bush Administration is captive to special interests" argument--a common one in the campaign but another political non-starter.  The Democrats are just as captive to special interests as the Republicans--they just happen to be different ones.

(Rule #1 of American politics:  Everything one party does, the other party does just as much.  No exceptions...)

Again, it's not enough just to say that Bush is bad because of this or that (the 'anti' argument)--you have to demonstrate that the alternative is better.  Otherwise, you're just listening to the pot and the kettle call each other black and constantly telling you your decision should be obvious.

Obviously, Iraq was a big issue in the campaign; however, many Kerry supporters seemed to think the election was taking place in 2000, rather than 2004.  Iraq has already been invaded--the election is no longer about the question of 'should we' or 'shouldn't we', but about who would better handle the next four years of reconstruction.  Iraq is a mess right now--that's not in debate.  What is in debate is whether the chaos in post-Saddam Iraq is due to specific decisions made by the Bush Administration and could have been avoided.  If, like me, you think the insurrection in Iraq and the difficulty in creating a stable interim government was inevitable from the beginning, then, of course, it doesn't matter who the president is/was.  Even if you think the chaos is directly the Bush Administration's 'fault'--you still have to demonstrate that Kerry's policies would be better, and that if he were in charge he'd be able to, if not solve then minimize the problems in Iraq over the next four years.  If you think that the problems in Iraq were destined from the beginning, then that's not really a reason to vote 'against' Bush.

(It would be a reason, however, why the invasion of Iraq should never have happened in the first place--but remember, we're in 2004 now, not 2000.  It's not about 'punishing' the Bush Administration for previous actions, only about which of the two future administrations would be better for the US from 2004 to 2008...)

One curious and common anti-Bush argument was heard from many corners of the political globe, including from Garry Trudeau--creator of the comic strip Doonesbury.  (See Doonesbury for the week of October 11th):  that President Bush is not, in fact, very conservative.  This argument has, in fact, many merits:  from a spending and entitlement standpoint, many of Bush's policies have departed significantly from traditional conservative philosophies.

This argument, however, shares the same flaw as all the others listed above:  it's not enough just to show that President Bush is not very conservative in some of his policies--you have to show why conservatives should be voting for Kerry instead.

Trudeau in particular presents the argument as if by itself it shows why conservatives should support Kerry instead of Bush, when even a token browsing of Kerry's proposed policies shows that from a spending and entitlement standpoint, he's still far less conservative than Bush is.  A financially conservative voter might very well be concerned about many of Bush's costly policies, but in the end isn't he/she still going to vote for Bush simply for being the (comparitively) more conservative of the two choices?

Presenting the 'anti-' argument without bringing in the 'for' argument ends up (1) not gaining Kerry any new votes because conservatives are going to like his policies even less than Bush's, and (2) quite possibly lost Kerry votes by reminding some moderate, undecided voters that Bush isn't as extreme-right as they might have feared, and just might be the most palatable, 'central' candidate.

Now, do I think Bush 'deserved' a second term?  No...but neither do I think Kerry 'deserved' to be president either.  I didn't vote for either, but am not crying now with Bush having a second term nor would I have if Kerry had won.  My not being in the country on November 2nd can act as an 'excuse' for me not voting, but, of course, I could have worked around it had I so chosen.  Voting activists accuse people like me of being 'lazy' and 'taking my right to vote for granted'.  I won't argue with the 'lazy' appellation, but in reality I value my right to vote very highly.  High enough, in fact, that I have a strong principle in regards to voting which applies in this election:  I will not vote for someone whom I do not, in actuality, support. 

In other words:

I do not vote 'against' people, only 'for' people.

And that is, in my opinion, the fundamental reason why Kerry was not able to raise the support he needed to win--too much time by his supporters working 'against' Bush and not enough 'for' Kerry.    Only the staunchest supporters of one candidate (or the staunchest haters of the other) will be content with only half of the argument.  The rest will sit there and think--"your anti- arguments have merit, but what's the alternative?" and will either stick with the 'devil they know' for the sake of continuity, or not vote at all.

Did the Bush camp spend most of their time being 'anti-Kerry' instead of being 'pro-Bush'?  Of course they did--see Rule #1 above.  But they were already in power, and thus could afford to do so, because the burden of proof for change lay on the other side.  Kerry wasn't able to meet the burden of proof for change for enough people and thus it turned out to be a 51%-48% victory for Bush...