How Political Psychology Explains Bush's Gastly Success

This is absolutely fascinating. The new field of political psychology is looked at and explains why so many clung to Bush during the 04 elections and how he won it. and how Kerry lost.
it also explains how bush lost his hold on the voters and the rise of the Democrats.
Also, why Guillianni is leading and in the conservative strongholds. It also may explain why so many democrats thought rove was this master evil genius. he used simple psychology and was a good saleman but, many couldn't figure out how the voters kept sticking by Bush.
This is really good stuff.


In the months after September 11, most Americans were caught up in the same reaction to the tragedy--and that included adulation for Bush, even among many Democrats. But over the next few years, faced with two elections, Bush had to maintain his popularity; and he did so by constantly reviving memories of that dark day. As the 2002 election approached, voters turned their attention to the recession, as well as Enron and other scandals--all to the Democrats' favor. At that point, Bush, who had stood aside in the November 2001 gubernatorial elections that Democrats won, sought to base the 2002 election on terrorism. Bush and Karl Rove used the full arsenal of scare tactics to evoke fears of another September 11. The result was that the electorate became sharply polarized between conservatives and liberals and between Republicans and Democrats, while those caught in the middle tended to side with the Repub- licans--exactly as the psychologists' experiments might have predicted.

Some political analysts harshly criticized Kerry in 2004 for failing to counter Bush's charismatic style with an equally attractive appeal of his own. Many, like Slate's Chris Suellentrop, complained that Kerry lacked vision. "Vision without details beats details without vision," Suellentrop wrote. Others, like Thomas Frank, wrote that Kerry should have countered Bush's "cultural populism" with "genuine economic populism." But, if Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski are right, it would have been very difficult for any politician--not just the stolid Kerry--to overcome Bush's built-in advantage from being the nation's leader at a time when many voters feared another attack. In 2004, Bush, as the commander-in-chief, still had the unconscious on his side. And that advantage may have proven insuperable.

snip

Something like that might have happened after the 2004 election, as voters, forced to weigh other concerns--Iraq, Katrina, the Abramoff scandals--subjected reminders of September 11 to greater thought and skepticism. These associations made Bush "less of a useful object." It could also be that active memories of September 11 have begun to fade for many Americans--just as memories of Pearl Harbor did for an earlier generation--reducing the effect that these memories have on unconscious fears. The reduction of mortality salience is evident not just in growing public dissatisfaction with Bush, but in reduced support for conservative social causes. The average annual percentage of those believing abortion should be illegal dropped from 19 percent in 2004 to 15 percent in 2006, and the percentage believing it should be legal "under any circumstances" rose from 24 to 30 percent. The postSeptember 11 outburst of religiosity also began to abate, particularly among the young. These changes in public sentiment, which reflected the diminished psychological impact of September 11, help explain the Democratic triumph of 2006.

Of course, there are still voters within the Republican electorate whose hearts beat to the rhythms of September 11 and who are still engaged in a passionate defense of their worldview. They continue to identify the war in Iraq with the war on terror; they worry about illegal aliens and terrorists crossing the border; some even judge the growing public opposition to Bush as further confirmation of his role as protector. These voters appear particularly attracted to Rudy Giuliani, whose entire campaign is based upon reminding voters of September 11. And, if Giuliani is the Republican nominee in 2008, the election may pivot on his ability to use reminders of September 11 to provoke the public into another massive bout of worldview defense.


http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070827&s=judis082707&c=1

Republicans: They are the party of Death, Fear and Hate.

It doesn't just explain why Bush came close enough to "win" but it brilliantly demonstartes exactly what the Dems should be saying and doing. It's a great read and really explains from a psychological and brain science viewpoint why DUers and the blogosphere keep getting it right and the beltway consulting class keeps getting it so terribly wrong.

* is supposed to have vision? He doesn't know the first thing about anything to do with his job - economics, foreign policy, monetary policy, ecology, education,... He's a stupid drunk who can't even utter a sentence without a teleprompter. A few people voted for him because the media in this country puts Hitler's propaganda machine to shame.

reaped political benefits from 911. In a smarter society the bin Laden video of 2004 would have ended Bush right then and there.