Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush Mandate: reality or manmade myth
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 45 (157595)
11-09-2004 10:08 AM


While it is clear that the republicans have a mandate to be the majority representatives for our nation. That is different than there being a policy mandate by the public. Yet this is exactly what the Bush administration is claiming.
They claim that this clear, but narrow, victory indicates that Bush's policies have been vindicated and he has a mandate. Mandate used to mean largely accepted, not just slim majority. And in this case all his policies don't even have that.
Or am I wrong? What is the criteria for a mandate?
And more bizarre to me is that Reps from all over the place are saying that this has given Bush's policies some sort of international credibility. They say that now that the slim majority of americans have chosen Bush as their rep, everyone else in the world must take him seriously. Why?
Even Colin Powell has asserted this strange notion. According to that Reuter article...
In an interview with Britain's Financial Times newspaper, Powell said Bush had no intention of pulling back and insisted the newly re-elected president had a mandate to pursue American national interests in international affairs...
While the Bush administration would seek to reach out to the international community and pursue a foreign policy that was "multilateral in nature," Washington would act alone where necessary, the newspaper also reported Powell as saying.
It sounds like the US, or at least Bush, needs a serious bitch slapping from the international community. Certainly these arrogant comments do not help the US look any better.
Do Reps not understand that the international community was overwhelmingly against him, and if they had had a vote he wouldn't be in office. The fact that a slim american majority did does not suggest a mandate to or from them.
This is like suggesting Europeans should have folded their cards because of the enthusiasm of Germans for Hitler. His popularity at home... and Hitler had more of a mandate than Bush... is besides the point when it comes to international affairs and we shouldn't forget that.
So this is my position. But maybe I am wrong. What is the criteria for a mandate, does Bush's policies actually meet those criteria, and does a foreign entity have to accept the "mandate" of another entity?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 11-09-2004 12:08 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 6 by joz, posted 11-09-2004 7:10 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2004 8:34 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 23 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-10-2004 4:10 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 45 (157624)
11-09-2004 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-09-2004 10:08 AM


Strictly speaking, Bush does have a mandate. From Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary, a mandate is "an authorization to act given to a representative ". Given that he won the election by a majority, no matter how slim, it is, strictly speaking, a mandate.
Perhaps the biggest gaff that Bush has made recently was in a press conference. He spoke about trying to create bipartisan legislation and policy. Paraphrasing, Bush said the he will reach across the aisle to those who share his goals. What Bush doesn't realize, or refuses to realize, is that bipartisianship requires you to reach out to those who DON'T share your goals. Everyone who "shares Bush's goals" are already on his side of the aisle. It would be like Kerry trying to reach out to Michael Moore.
While Bush can claim, in a very strict and narrow sense, that he does have a mandate, what he doesn't have is overwhelming popular support for his domestic and foreign policies. If only 51% of the nation voted for you it makes it hard to claim that the country is 100% behind you. From early indications, it would seem that Bush is going to assume that his vision for the future is the only right one and will not listen to the massive numbers of people (49% of the populace) that disagree with his policies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2004 10:08 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2004 3:32 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 12 by zephyr, posted 11-10-2004 5:59 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 45 (157694)
11-09-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Loudmouth
11-09-2004 12:08 PM


Strictly speaking, Bush does have a mandate. From Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary, a mandate is "an authorization to act given to a representative ".
This is actually something I was trying to get at (strict def vs implications) along with whether Bush actually fits what they are implying. Given the above, strict, dictionary definition every single elected representative has a mandate, not just Bush.
The word has been gaining in usage as shorthand for "popular mandate", meaning that a representative has a sizable majority supporting his/her position. But here the Reps have decided to equivocate and use the dictionary def to make people think Bush enjoys some sizable majority support.
I did read Bush's gaffe (regarding reaching out to those who are willing to follow him blindly) and thought to mention it, then figured more would be coming down the pike soon enough.
What I'm trying to get out of this thread is if Bush supporters are actually buying this "mandate" implication of "vast popular support", and if they really think that internationally people are going to go "oh really he won in the US, we must be wrong" and then roll over to his policies.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 11-09-2004 12:08 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 11-09-2004 3:47 PM Silent H has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 45 (157701)
11-09-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
11-09-2004 3:32 PM


Extrapolation from Definition
quote:
What I'm trying to get out of this thread is if Bush supporters are actually buying this "mandate" implication of "vast popular support", and if they really think that internationally people are going to go "oh really he won in the US, we must be wrong" and then roll over to his policies.
Owing to the short term memory of neo-cons, they would have claimed "vast popular support" even if they won by one vote. This type of pattern can be seen throughout Bush's first term, ignoring vociferous opposition while singing the praises of winning a Senate vote by 3 votes. Simplifying complex issues, such as the partial birth abortion bill, into 2 second soundbites in an effort to skew the actual debate is another neo-con sleight of hand. The new underhanded use of "mandate" is just another ploy that continues to have success in the Red states. Anyone who opposes the misuse of definitions or electoral successes is then seen as part of the neo-con derided "liberal media/elite". It seems that having an education and understanding complex issues is a hinderance in this country, not an asset as it should be.
It looks like moderates are on the outs, and the extremists (from both sides of the aisle) are going to control the soap box for awhile. Hopefully, the dust will settle quickly after this election and the government can shift to where it does its best work, from a position of moderation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2004 3:32 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2004 3:58 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 11-09-2004 7:41 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 32 by nator, posted 11-11-2004 9:00 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 45 (157711)
11-09-2004 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Loudmouth
11-09-2004 3:47 PM


Agreed on all counts...
It seems that having an education and understanding complex issues is a hinderance in this country, not an asset as it should be.
Oh my head is spinning, I can't figure out what you just said. Yer one-uh them damn flip-flappers ain't yuh?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 11-09-2004 3:47 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 45 (157751)
11-09-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-09-2004 10:08 AM


My dads take on it in our phone conversation this weekend was as follows...
Its crazy, 60 million cretins over there have inflicted that imbecile on the other 5.994 billion of us...
This message has been edited by joz, 11-09-2004 07:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2004 10:08 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 7 of 45 (157755)
11-09-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Loudmouth
11-09-2004 3:47 PM


Re: Extrapolation from Definition
It seems that having an education and understanding complex issues is a hinderance in this country, not an asset as it should be.
Pol Pot found a solution to having too many educated elite, didn't he?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 11-09-2004 3:47 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 45 (157764)
11-09-2004 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-09-2004 10:08 AM


yep
he has a mandate
to take responsibility for the next 4 years and not be able to blame anyone but himself and his administration for any failure.
it should be interesting ...
heh.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2004 10:08 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2004 3:57 AM RAZD has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6465 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 45 (157842)
11-10-2004 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
11-09-2004 8:34 PM


Re: yep
quote:
to take responsibility for the next 4 years and not be able to blame anyone but himself and his administration for any failure.
This will not happen, I believe, and the last 4 years sets the precedent. If the economy and/or one of our military adventures goes seriously awry, under no circumstances will the GOP (and certainly not the Bush admin) take responsibility. They will accuse "activist" judges, liberal elitist, atheists, whatever for the failings and repeat it so often in the media that it become "fact". They will then frame the next presidential election as the good moral guys who would have done a good job versus the evil people who prevented them from doing it and will probably win even more of a majority. Even if the congress and senate had just 1 democrat and the rest were republicans they would spin it to make it all the one democrats fault for their failures. This is how it has been for several years...WMDs in Iraq, need to invade, WMDs in Iraq, need to invade, WMDs in Iraq, need to invade...never said their were WMDs, never said there were WMDs, never said there were WMDs...it was right to invade, it was right to invade, it was right to invade etc. etc.
As Loudmouth pointed out, the anti-education anti-intellectual culture that is growing in the US is a huge detriment. A clueless electorate is the playground of dictators and tyrants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2004 8:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 11-10-2004 5:31 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2004 8:04 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2004 8:34 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 45 (157858)
11-10-2004 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
11-10-2004 3:57 AM


Even if the congress and senate had just 1 democrat and the rest were republicans they would spin it to make it all the one democrats fault for their failures.
Oh they wouldn't even need one democrat anywhere. Remember they can always blame it on the liberal media... that same "liberal" media which replayed their lies and obfuscations without question.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2004 3:57 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2004 5:52 AM Silent H has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6465 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 45 (157862)
11-10-2004 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
11-10-2004 5:31 AM


The amazing thing is how big a difference a questioning and informed electorate can be. In Germany and much of europe this lie-repeat lie over and over-lie becomes fact would not work (at least not for all political subjects). There are just too many politically active and informed people who get their information from a variety of sources, cross check, and question. The media is also fairly diverse not to mention that you get access to the news from different EU countries.
While not all decisions made by the electorate are great, at least they are better informed and go to vote in greater numbers than in the "I like the guy's tie and he will bomb countries for jesus even if it costs me my job since he said so on Fox news" US of the present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 11-10-2004 5:31 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 11-10-2004 6:16 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 12 of 45 (157864)
11-10-2004 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Loudmouth
11-09-2004 12:08 PM


The more I read about Bush, the less I think he gives a rat's ass about a voters' mandate. He has a real and genuine messiah complex and believes he takes his orders from on high.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 11-09-2004 12:08 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 45 (157870)
11-10-2004 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mammuthus
11-10-2004 5:52 AM


In Germany and much of europe this lie-repeat lie over and over-lie becomes fact would not work (at least not for all political subjects)... The media is also fairly diverse not to mention that you get access to the news from different EU countries.
I agree. First of all the media is so much better with regard to the news. It is certainly one of the things I like about Europe and miss everytime I return to the US.
In all honesty I think the only good news programs in the US are the Daily Show and RealTime with Bill Maher, which ironically are comedies and not news shows. At least on those shows they actually point out some logical and factual problems with positions. All other programs are he said, she said and pretend that as long as you heard both sides that was good reporting.
My criticism, especially of the Netherlands, is that the populace is still not very "real" with challenging their government. They protest... oh yeah me and my gf were in the largest Dutch demonstrations in 20 years... but then go home and its like it didn't happen.
I think part of that is because even if individuals are upset with agendas from specific candidates, they are still interested in their parties. In current parlaimentary systems they can only vote for the party. For example in england many people would love to see Blair go, but don't necessarily want to remove labour to achieve that end.
I believe that voting systems for both party and candidate are needed to give voters a greater power over their governments.
One other criticism of dutchies is that they are very susceptible to manipulation by current events. The assassination of Pim Fortuyn gave that slightly unpopular guy's party more seats than they ever deserved as well as packing other conservative parties. It seems the killing of Theo Van Gogh may also result in people forgetting they are unhappy with the gov't as they run for shelter.
For all the talk of Spain having been influenced by a bombing, I notice Bush never said anything about the obvious way Holland was pushed that way by a shooting. Of course its because it got his friend in power.
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-10-2004 06:20 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2004 5:52 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 45 (157871)
11-10-2004 6:34 AM


Bush certainly does have a valid and powerful mandate at this point. Formally, a mandate is a document or instruction within the formal mechanism of politics to a representative to carry out certain appointed functions. Due to the power of the American president, its fair to say Bush has a mandate to do anything he wishes, nearly.
The central point is that Bush was judged on his record. He presented his "achievements" to the people and they saw that it was good. Therefore he has every reason to feel confirmed in his strategy, and that he enjoys popular confidence in the pursuit of that strategy.
Bush is in a much stronger position now than when he first won the presidency. It could be and was argued that in his first term he did not really carry a popular mandate to implement his own policies, given the narrowness/dubiousness of his victory. But now that argument cannot apply, as his victory is more certain this time and clearly his track record has not undermined his popularity but increased it.
In both of Bush's presidential victories, commentators on both left and right remarked that they did not expect to see Bush pursue extreme Republican strategies on the grounds that he did not really command public confidence for these positions. But in fact he has every right to do so and the opposition has no grounds to object - they have entered into the social contract of democracy and regardless of how much they disagree with a position, they must recognise that theirs is a minority view and subordinate their interests to the democratic will of the state as a whole.
It may be unwise, politically, to exceed your mandate. But there is no inevitability about that - exceeding a mandate can also increase a politicians popularity. In recent decades a popular myth that elections are won in the political centre has arisen, but Bush's victory may well lay this to rest.
In terms of the international issues, the mandate given to Bush by his own electors does not imply that his policies need be recognised as valid by any other state, NGO, et al. But it does mean that we have to recognises that this is the position of the American people as a whole, and that Bush is correctly operating as a representative of America.
Of course the irony here is that the US does not really recognise the mandate of the UN, or even other states governments. The UN can certainly be said to carry a qualitatively superior mandate from its members than the mere head of a particular state. The mandate given by the American people to the American president is no more significant internationally than the mandate given by the population of Lithuania to the Lithuanian head of state. The only difference lies in the sheer military power with which America can and will pursue its policies.
It is true to say that many in the international community have been hoping that Bush was an aberration within the general trend of liberal American politics. However, this always was an optimisitic delusion, albeit one also held by members of the American left. There seems to be this presumption that the voluble right-wingers do not really represent America, but this is really an appeal to an idea, an ideal of what America should be rather than an analysis of what it is. With its high levels of homophobia, racism, imperialism and narcissism, Bush is a truer representation of the actuality of American politics. Delusional Americaphiles need to start dealing with the US as its behaviour shows it to be, not according what it's rhetorical self-image claims it to be.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2004 6:51 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 20 by Loudmouth, posted 11-10-2004 12:13 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 11-10-2004 12:26 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 11-11-2004 3:03 AM contracycle has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6465 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 15 of 45 (157877)
11-10-2004 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by contracycle
11-10-2004 6:34 AM


quote:
Delusional Americaphiles need to start dealing with the US as its behaviour shows it to be, not according what it's rhetorical self-image claims it to be.
While I agree with much of what you said and particularly this last statement, what do you actually propose? So far most of the leaders of other countries have tripped over themselves to kiss Bush's ass. Do you propose they oppose the US militarily? Very very unlikely. Economically? Even less likely since most of the economic elite in every country on Earth has invested in the US and will fight to keep the the interest they earn as high as they can even if everyone else on the planet suffers. Most likely there will be protests, harsh articles written, and angry internet posts from citizens of other countries and Bush and his cabal will do what they want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by contracycle, posted 11-10-2004 6:34 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by contracycle, posted 11-10-2004 10:21 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024