More analysis of the Presidential Election
Writing about web page http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1345385,00.html
As ever, Observer columnist Mr David Aaronovitch has a point. I admit that in the midst of the election aftermath, I and many liberal types set about proclaiming the US a theocracy, acting almost as blindly as Republican policymakers. But all that time, in the back of my mind, the statistics didn't really add up. So 21% of the electorate voted based on moral issues, and 80% of that gave their vote to Bush, which is like 17%: only 17% of the American population can be described as religious nutjobs. This is the main thrust of Aaronovitch's argument, an important point to raise. He goes on to say that there are many reasons why people voted for Bush. Fair enough, but that doesn't make the Bush adminstration a non-theocracy. My problem with Aaronovitch's argument is that he claims the American voters weren't misled by an ideology; rather the Democrats campaign was just a bit shit. But don't you see? Bush is an extremist but he wasn't going to be elected running on a fundamentalist platform, so he tailored his campaign to appeal to the secular majority. Of course, now that he's in power, without seeking re-election, he can do whatever the fuck he likes, especially with all that Republican support in Congress. So the American people aren't theocrats, the government is, and the 'secular' 34% who voted for Bush on reasons other than moral values were just misled by the Bush campaign/uninspired by the Kerry campaign (or want more tax cuts, or hate Arabs).
Democracy doesn't work.