Less than 2 months after the election, a Washington Post headline read: "56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake". Somehow, Bush still won the most votes when it counted. I think this was in large part because too many voters believed something we can prove just isn't so: that Bush and the Republicans defend America better than Kerry and the Democrats could. To too many voters this issue trumped all others, and they made their decision based on misleading and false information. (See: "56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake" John F. Harris and Christopher Muste, The Washington Post Dec. 21, 2004 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html)

An anonymous writer characterized and personalized this situation as follows:

What makes national security such a winner for Republicans is that it dramatizes the same negative qualities of liberalism that we see in the so-called "values" issues, only much more forcefully. War casts in sharp relief the inauthenticity of the liberals, the insincerity of their patriotism, and their intellectual distance (always trying to "understand" the terrorists' motives) from the raw emotions felt by ordinary Americans - each quality an expression of the deracinated upper-classness that is thought to be the defining characteristic of liberalism.

The reason conservatives are always thought to be tough and liberals to be effete milquetoasts (two favorite epithets from the early days of the backlash) even when they aren't is the same reason Americans believe the French to be a nation of sissies....

According to this analysis, Bush won because:

If you talk like a Texan, you are a two-fisted he-man who knows life's hardships and are ready to scrap at a moment's notice. This is the reason conservative authors and radio demagogues find it so easy to connect liberals and terrorists.

It is the same reason, by extension, that old-time political nicknames like "the Fighting Liberal" make no sense to us anymore and that current foreign policy failures like North Korean nuclear proliferation do not bring lasting discredit on President Bush: in the face of such crises one is either a wimp or a hard guy, and we've already got a hard guy in there [but] when CBS News examined Dubya's years in the National Guard ... the age-old charge of liberal bias suddenly became the topic of the day.

While the distortions of the Swifties had brought no discredit on Republican campaign efforts, the CBS program was immediately understood not as an honest mistake but as a politically motivated hatchet job, the final proof that the nation's news organizations were out to get conservatives.

According to the no-name writer:

[T]he most powerful evocation of the backlash spirit always comes from personal testimony, a tale of how one man came to realize that liberals weren't the friends of common folks but just the opposite [and] in 2004 that traditional role fell to Zell Miller, Democratic senator from Georgia, whose thunderous indictment of his liberal colleagues from the podium of the Republican convention caused such excitement in conservative circles.

Here was Miller to assure Republicans that everything they'd ever suspected was true: that the real problem with American politics was that the Democrats had swerved too far to the left; that those same Democrats were led by self-hating people who think 'America is the problem, not the solution'; that their presidential candidate was so beguiled by Frenchness - a classic stand-in for devitalized upper-classness - that he "would let Paris decide when America needs defending."

Miller also accused Kerry of laying waste to the defense budget, and expecting our troops to defend us with "pea-shooters." These and other cheap shots hit their mark as "anonymous" reports: "The secretary of commerce said he thought Kerry 'looks French.' The House majority leader made a habit of starting off speeches with the line, 'Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: 'Bonjour!' The NRA came up with an image that brilliantly encapsulated the whole thing: an elaborately clipped French poodle in a pink bow and a Kerry-for-president sweater over the slogan 'That dog don't hunt.'" (See: Anonymous http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20050423193225401)

If Democrats and Kerry got their message to the electorate, it was too little too late. As The Washington Post reported, "While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an 'unacceptable' cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" - an eight-point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion."

Still, "While the results are bad for Bush as people look at past decisions - whether the Iraq war should have been waged in the first place -- the president has more support for his policies over the choices he faces going forward. A strong majority of Americans, 58 percent, support keeping military forces in Iraq until 'civil order is restored,' even in the face of continued U.S. causalities." (See: "56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake" John F. Harris and Christopher Muste)

How did this happen? Andrew Herrington of Pateo Consulting observed, "One of the best known theories explaining the actions of people is that of Dr. Abraham Maslow (Motivation and Personality, New York, Harper and Row: 1954). Dr. Maslow hypothesized that people are motivated by a hierarchy of needs. Maslow's theory requires that: Each individual's needs must be satisfied at the lower levels before they progress to the higher, more complex levels." (See: http://www.pateo.com/article6.html)

Wikipedia explains: Maslow presented his hierarchy as a pyramid, and [at the] base of the pyramid is the physiological needs, which are necessary for survival. Once these are taken care of, an individual can concentrate on the second layer, the need for safety and security. [T]he first four layers are what Maslow called deficiency needs or D-needs. If they are not filled, you feel anxiety and attempt to fill them. If they are filled, you feel nothing; you feel only the lack. Each layer also takes precedence over the layer above it; you do not feel the lack of safety and security until your physiological needs are taken care of, for example. In Maslow's terminology, a need does not become salient until the needs below it are met." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow)

Tracy Porter writes, "Fortunately, in all except the most extreme of circumstances, most people will have met their survival needs and will be able to work on the higher order motivators, but if one should find himself in the situation where he does not have the basic essentials of food, water and shelter, then all other goals will go into remission until he has been able to acquire them.... After a person's survival needs have been met, he will then tend to focus on achieving his safety needs, or security and protection from danger.... Western society is designed so that people will place a great deal of emphasis on security...." (See: http://www.angelfire.com/psy/reading/CriticalReading.html)

Again from Wikipedia: "When the physiological needs are met then the human turns towards safety needs. Safety attains the highest priority over all other desires.... Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks fear of insecurity has been a powerful factor in popular opinion, and therefore government policy. However, it should be noted that safety, or the lack of safety, does not have to be actual. Politicians can try to make people perceive (a lack of) safety as a tactic to sway public opinion." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs)

Republican politicians successfully stoke and manipulate fear of attack to their benefit. Just over a year ago, Arnold Hamilton wrote in The Dallas Morning News "For Republicans and Democrats alike, Sept. 11, 2001, propelled the terrorism and security issue to the top of the nation's agenda. The consensus didn't last long. Less than three years after the attacks in New York and Virginia, the issue now serves to underscore America's hardening political divide - a disconnect between Democrats and Republicans over what's most important in selecting the next president." (See: "Political split on war on terrorism highlights party differences," Arnold Hamilton, The Dallas Morning News: March 30, 2004, http://www.pos.org/platform/file_retrieve.cfm?ID=541)

Hamilton added, "exit polls from the recent primaries showed the war on terrorism and the issue of homeland and national security scarcely registering among Democrats, lagging far behind the economy and jobs, health care and education. Yet Republicans give it much higher priority in national polls - and President Bush already signaled he would make his handling of the nation's security challenges a cornerstone of his re-election campaign."

Hamilton identified and quoted "Bill McInturff, a GOP pollster who helps conduct nonpartisan surveys for National Public Radio: '[Democrats and Republicans] just have different views of America's place in the world and the use of force" and "Chris Wilson, a GOP pollster working for Bush's re-election campaign [who predicted that the election would turn on] foreign policy, which 'almost always decides presidential elections.' 'It's very rare where you have a 1992,' he said, 'where it's all about domestic issues.'"

By contrast, "Democrats [said] they are equally convinced that domestic issues - the economy and jobs, health care and education - [would] prove most important with voters. National polls show a majority of Americans believe Kerry would be a better choice to deal with domestic problems, a political strength that helps explain his focus on jobs and health care. 'As you know, George Bush wants this whole deal just to be about war, [Kerry said] His first advertisements have pictures of Ground Zero. He can't come out here and talk to you about jobs. He can't come out here and talk to you about protecting the environment. ... He's going to try to scare America and he's going to try to change the subject."

That's exactly what Bush tried to do. In too many cases, it worked. Bush won by a huge margin among those most concerned about national security and terrorism. Hamilton reported that "Republican Maggie Bailey, who lives near the gates to Camp Pendleton near San Diego, [and] said terrorism and security are paramount in her decision to support Bush - not only because she frequently travels, both domestically and abroad, but also because of its 'implications on the global economy.' 'I think the choice is very clear,' said Bailey, 53, a professor of international business at Point Loma Nazarene University who formerly worked for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Senate." (See: "Political split on war on terrorism highlights party differences," Arnold Hamilton.)

All is not bleak. From the December 21st Washington Post: "[t]he poll suggests Bush is in a paradoxical situation - a triumphant president who remains acutely vulnerable in public opinion on a national security issue that is dominating headlines and could shadow his second term." Where is he vulnerable?

John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World explains: "The polling data suggest some positive national security messages that Democrats could put forward. For example, Americans are concerned about a biological or chemical weapons attack. Democrats could propose enhancing port and border security and beefing up security around chemical plants, dams, and nuclear power facilities. The administration's large increase in spending for homeland security in its latest budget is likely a preemptive response to such proposals." He added:

Research also suggests that many Americans endorse a foreign policy agenda that goes beyond defending against terrorism and security threats and accentuates building a more peaceful and prosperous world based on hope rather than fear. Democrats can propose solutions for global poverty, human rights transgressions, and the spread of diseases and environmental degradation across international borders - as well as responding to terrorism [and] analysis indicates substantial voter support for multilateralism rather than 'going it alone.' ...

Democrats can also talk about rebuilding America's now-tarnished image through cooperation and coalitions with other countries.... To win in November, Democrats will need to engage on national security issues in a way that reassures the American people."

(See: John Isaacs Elections, What the Dems Must Do, http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_521.html)

While it's too late to beat Bush at the polls, we can still counter Republican fear tactics to persuade swing voters. We can still win elections and the battle for public opinion. To succeed, we need only cut into - not reverse - the huge advantage Republicans enjoy on security issues. That will not be difficult. We have the facts on our side. All we have to do is get the facts - our message - to the public.

First we have to craft and test our message - whether we decide to stress past Democratic leadership, the counter-productive, overly-aggressive and incredibly costly Republican failures, how runaway weapons spending is bankrupting us and undermining our security, or a mix of these and other themes.

Then, we have to utilize creative and cost-effective ways to deliver our message via the internet and at our local meetings to gain financial and other support. When we've achieved that, we will expand our efforts and our reach as explained in the "bootstrap media" approach. We're already underway, and nothing can stop us now.

Also at this site: Republicans Can't Keep Us Safe

I originally wrote this article over a year ago. I went back and polished it, but changed little. It's incredible how events of the past year only confirm what I wrote. Republican inability to run the economy is well established, so there's no need to belabor that point. Their failure to conduct diplomacy or other national security policy is less widely understood. However, as the facts show, Republicans can't keep us safe.

Republicans Still Can't Keep Us Safe