He fucked things up by being incompetent, though - you don't need to bring his personality into it; just looking at his track record should be enough to show that he's an unreliable and unprofessional twit who's at best borderline-competent to be responsible for the contents of his own bladder, never mind a whole country. Were it not for the public support of his perceived "down-to-earth" personality, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere near power.
Eh, not really true. His personality was part of what attracted some people and repelled others, but ultimately, I think it was his penchant for religious platitudes and his campaigns' use of fearmongering ("Oh noes! The terrorists and homosex-shulz is gonna getcha!") that got him elected. That and Diebold.
Of course, the fact that a portion of the American public will vote for someone based on whether they like them rather than whether their policies make any bit of sense what-so-fucking-ever is a contributory issue. I'm curious to see what would happen if a high-profile celebrity founded a a party analogous to the Monster Raving Loony party over there, because you just know they'd do at least as well as Ralph Nader...
I think it's a misnomer to assume that people voted for Bush because they "like him." It may be a worse crime, ultimately, but I think a lot of Americans genuinely liked his policies, misguided as they may be. They liked his track record of putting a bazillion people to death in Texas. It's not so much that they're ignoring his policies, because they like his personality. It's that his personality and policies are akin to the way in which they think the world should be run. It's erroneous and ignorant, but it's more than just "Aw, I like that guy!"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-29 07:06 pm (UTC)Eh, not really true. His personality was part of what attracted some people and repelled others, but ultimately, I think it was his penchant for religious platitudes and his campaigns' use of fearmongering ("Oh noes! The terrorists and homosex-shulz is gonna getcha!") that got him elected. That and Diebold.
Of course, the fact that a portion of the American public will vote for someone based on whether they like them rather than whether their policies make any bit of sense what-so-fucking-ever is a contributory issue. I'm curious to see what would happen if a high-profile celebrity founded a a party analogous to the Monster Raving Loony party over there, because you just know they'd do at least as well as Ralph Nader...
I think it's a misnomer to assume that people voted for Bush because they "like him." It may be a worse crime, ultimately, but I think a lot of Americans genuinely liked his policies, misguided as they may be. They liked his track record of putting a bazillion people to death in Texas. It's not so much that they're ignoring his policies, because they like his personality. It's that his personality and policies are akin to the way in which they think the world should be run. It's erroneous and ignorant, but it's more than just "Aw, I like that guy!"