Why Are US Voters Stupid?.. Let's Admit US Won in Iraq

Why Are US Voters Stupid?

Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - by Staff Report

Getty Images

Political scientist Dr. David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters. Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms. What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence. Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough. But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help. In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%. Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal. Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford? Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies? It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington. - BBC

Dominant Social Theme: American voters are very interesting creatures. We must analyze them further.

Free-Market Analysis: The real title of this article is "Why do people often vote against their own interests?" It caught our eye because it seemed, well, a little bit patronizing. Even before reading it, just from the headline, we decided the BBC was asking the question based on the recent "upset" Republican victory in Democratic Massachusetts. Second, we decided the point of view was probably simplistic, especially within the larger context of Western democracy. Finally, we figured the article would reveal a liberal bias if we read through to the end.

Here's what we found: The article does indeed reference the Massachusetts electoral upset and from our point of view treats, as we expected, it in a patronizing way. The analysis of what is going on in America is indeed simplistic. And the liberal bias, from our point of view, was evident right where we expected, toward the end of the article.

Is it important to analyze this sort of thing? Of course! Seldom in the history of humankind, in our opinion, has Western leadership - and its media mouthpieces - been so alienated from the larger citizenry it purports to support and lead. Granted, one cannot draw too many conclusions from a single article, but the mindset that allowed this article to be produced and featured by the BBC is symptomatic of the chasm between those that attempt to shape British opinion and the growing "reality on the ground" in the 21st century. Here's some more:

Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an ... exasperated Democrat. He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronizing liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.

Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channeling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest. Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different: "You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
Thomas Frank thinks that voters have become blinded to their real interests "It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."

As Mr. Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.

And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted. This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.

The passage above, coming toward the end of the article is, in our opinion, the real reason the article was written. The BBC generally is not a great fan of the American Republican Party and of "right wing" politics in general. The article's real thesis, from our point of view, is that "Americans are once again being lied to by the fascist right wing - which has learned to adopt an "authentic tone."

Poor BBC. They have got it wrong again. This is important because in the Age of the Internet, such propagandistic handiwork has ramifications. In fact, what is going on in America, thanks in large part to information available on the Internet, is that literally millions of people, many of them youngsters, have rediscovered classical liberalism and real republican values. The Tea Parties are an outgrowth of this discovery, though also of general American voter rage with the continued decline of civil society and living standards.

To answer the BBC's question, American voters ARE NOT voting against their interests, nor are they voting for "authenticity." What American voters are voting for increasingly is more freedom, less government, fewer taxes and a political system that is seen as working for the people rather than against them. President Barack Obama has misread the will of the voters and the "change" he was elected to provide.

The biggest and most powerful movement in the United States, as we have long predicted, is the classical liberal message of Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex). Eventually, maybe sooner rather than later, his movement (with some 250,000 members) will have signed up one million members, making it the most powerful force for freedom in America since before the Civil War. The British - the BBC and even the Telegraph - are blithely ignoring the convulsive changes that are taking place in American political life.

In the 20th century, articles like the one above (when repeated over and over within the echo chamber of mainstream media) could reinterpret voter discontent and sow confusion about whatever was starting to take place from the perspective of pro-freedom movements. But thanks to the Internet pro-freedom movements in America already HAVE taken place and become increasingly available. Elite reinterpretations of what is occurring - such as the one we have examined today - do not look reasonable or persuasive anymore. Instead, they look increasingly loony.

Conclusion: The conversation is shifting. Everything from various sociopolitical "conspiracy theories" to discussions over free-market gold and silver standards are inevitably going to shift as well. Here is the question of the day, dear reader. What happens when the larger sociopolitical frame of reference becomes one controlled by the "facts on the ground" rather than the dominant social themes that the power elite has successfully disseminated in the past? What happens when "dream time" of the past century gives way to the reality of the 21st century Internet era? What happens when average people begin to define their OWN reality rather than allowing it to be defined for them by massive elite promotions? It's already happening in America, and it will happen in Britain as well. Then the BBC will really have something to write about.


Let's Admit US Won in Iraq

Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - by Staff Report

Barack Obama / Getty Images

What Obama can't bring himself to say -- we won in Iraq ... President Obama (pictured left) says he is "not interested in re-litigating the past." Well, I am -- at least to this extent: Would it have been too much for the president of the United States to have acknowledged and paid tribute to a truly remarkable recent American achievement -- turning around the war in Iraq and putting that war on course to a successful outcome? Here's what Obama did say about Iraq: As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. That's it: "This war is ending." But it's ending in a certain way -- with success. It could have ended with failure. Success rather than failure in Iraq has made a big difference elsewhere in the Middle East -- including in Iran. Of course Obama didn't allude to the possibility -- let alone embrace the prospect -- of regime change in Iran. But that possibility exists, and it exists in part because of the relative success of freedom and democracy in Shia-governed Iraq next door. - Washington Post (William Kristol)

Dominant Social Theme: The West is best, even if we're too modest to admit it.

Free-Market Analysis: Even as we are writing this article, analysis comes word from RTTNews, among other sources, that "at least 41 people were killed and over 100 injured when a woman suicide-bomber detonated her explosives during a religious rally in north-east Baghdad Monday." William Kristol may believe that the West has "won" the war in Iraq, but we wonder just how definitive such statements can be. The violence seems to remain in Iraq, and who is to say it will not increase once more over time.

Here at the Bell, we don't feel especially victorious. Maybe Kristol does, as he is the editor of a famous conservative news magazine that has been pro-war virtually since its inception. But we even wonder how many Americans feel like big winners as they struggle with the US$1 trillion price tag of the war amidst job losses, higher taxes and looming inflation. Maybe American allies feel victorious, but we wonder if that includes American allies within Iraq who face the same weary prospects of a tripartite state (Kurds, Shias and Sunnis) once American troops definitively depart (to the extent they do).

The real nub of Kristol's argument would seem to be that having pacified Iraq, America now has a platform from which it can confront Iran more forcefully. Thus we see that the victory in Iraq is mostly the prelude to another war. How is it, again, that American has won? We're trying to understand. Is it because America is now in a better place to fight future Mideast wars? Or perhaps America has managed to bring "democracy" to Iraq - though Americans themselves don't seem very happy with their own democracy right now.
One thing seems certain. The Iraq people may not be as grateful for their liberation as some would expect. While the Shias may be thankful for being liberated from the Sunnis, the Shias are naturally aligned with Persian Iran - and America and the West are lining up solidly against Iran even now. The Sunnis having been deposed from power are probably somewhat resentful of the war's outcome.

Perhaps the Kurds are the most likely to be grateful for Western intervention in Iraq - but the Kurds have a long history of mistrust with the West, especially with the United States, and it's somewhat doubtful that the war itself allayed this mistrust. In fact, the Iraq war has brought ongoing misery and long-term ramifications of suffering - over 500,000 civilian casualties and a poisoned land. Here's a recent news item about a lawsuit being leveled against both Britain and the US by Iraq authorities:

Iraq's Ministry for Human Rights will file a lawsuit against Britain and the US over their use of depleted uranium bombs in Iraq, an Iraqi minister says. Iraq's Minister of Human Rights, Wijdan Mikhail Salim, told Assabah newspaper that the lawsuit will be launched based on reports from the Iraqi ministries of science and the environment. According to the reports, during the first year of the US and British invasion of Iraq, both countries had repeatedly used bombs containing depleted uranium. According to Iraqi military experts, the US and Britain bombed the country with nearly 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium bombs during the early years of the Iraq war. Atomic radiation has increased the number of babies born with defects in the southern provinces of Iraq. Iraqi doctors say they have been struggling to cope with the rise in the number of cancer cases -especially in cities subjected to heavy US and British bombardment. The high rate of birth defects and cancer cases will move in the coming years to the central and northern provinces of Iraq since the radiation may penetrate the soil and water by air. The ministry will seek compensation for the victims of these bombs. ( - Press TV)

So we ask again, where is the victory that Kristol speaks of? The Shias, Sunnis and even the Kurds are probably not apt to be overly grateful for what has taken place. Deposing Hussein and his totalitarian ways is no doubt a net plus for the region, but the suffering and misery that the war has left in its wake makes the equation a good deal less clear.

Perhaps victory can be seen in the ability for the US to directly pressure Iran from Iraq. But since the US is leaving Iraq - and the Iraq government is a forceful proponent of US leave-taking, we wonder how valuable an ally Iraq will prove to be. Perhaps the victory in Iraq lies in the eradication of Al Qaeda in that country. But if you are of the Bell's persuasion, you don't think that Al Qeada was much of a factor in Iraq to begin with and that the war really had little or no effect on the ability of radical Islam - whatever that is - to propagate itself or take root elsewhere.

The victory that Kristol writes of seems elusive to us. In fact, from what we can tell, war usually doesn't bring real change to a region unless it is a war of endless occupation or definitive eradication. If you wipe out the population, you have surely effectuated change. If you fully occupy a territory and commence making cultural changes, you are doing much the same thing. But the West doesn't operate this way with its wars. It tends to fight and then leave - leaving behind a military structure amidst a society that will find its own way post-war.

We think this will happen in Iraq as well. The country may continue to stagger forward as one entity, or it may split into its logical three pieces. There will likely be no great affection left behind for the West or America and the tangible result of eight year's of fighting may be the gigantic military and diplomatic base that the US has constructed in that bleeding country. Kristol may wish to define this as victory, but it begins to sound more like a declaration than a reality. In fact, there are almost 200 responses to Kristol's tiny article in the Washington Post (as of this writing) and very few of them are supportive of his comments.

Conclusion: The victory that Kristol writes of seems to us elusive. It will likely prove so in Afghanistan as well where American troops are building now for another "surge." Meanwhile, American and the British citizens are increasingly indicating that they are fed up with "endless war for endless peace." Thus the result of the victory that Kristol claims may actually be a considerable anti-war backlash and an inability of the Anglo-American political and military elite to pursue yet more open-ended military actions worldwide. Could this be seen as a victory as well?