[Marxism] Looking for a "Man Date"?

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

Michael Moore should line up as many gay men as possible who do not
shrink from the service of their country, take them to the White
House, and tell George W. Bush, "Mr. President, 51% doesn't give you
any big mandate (even if you got it without spoiling the votes of
Blacks and Latinos), but if you are looking for a man date, here we
are."

Cf.

The 51% Mandate
<http://199.249.170.220/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000706802>

Some feel blue, others see red, as many in the press embrace the
notion of a "resounding" victory for President Bush this week. No
wonder he says he is eager to spend all this "capital."

By Greg Mitchell

(November 05, 2004) -- I have to admit that I am a little confused by
all this talk of "man date" by Republican leaders in the days since
the election. I thought they were opposed to same-sex fooling around.

You might forgive my confusion, however. I heard and read that word
so often on Thursday my head is still spinning.

As Doyle McManus and Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times put it, Bush
aides "repeatedly" made the point that their man had won by such a
wide margin he should be given full rein to institute new policies
(or perhaps enact new wars). Did McManus and Hook consider this a bit
overblown? No, they repeated the talking point, declaring that "Bush
can claim a solid mandate of 51% of the vote."

A Wall Street Journal editorial termed the mandate "decisive." To the
New York Sun it was an "extraordinary mandate." Tom Teepen of Cox
Newspapers called it an "unquestionable mandate." Charles Krauthammer
in The Washington Post said the "endorsement" was "resounding." Bill
Kristol of the Weekly Standard capitalized the word, saying that
Bush's Mandate was greater than the Nixon landslide of 1972 and
Reagan's sweep in 1984.

Peggy Noonan got so excited that she paraphrased Bush in his victory
speech saying, "Honey, I'm not just going to lower your taxes. I am
transforming the tax system."

Now, where I come from (a "red" county, by the way), 51% is
considered a bare majority, not a comfortable margin. If only 51%
percent of my family or my editorial staff think I am doing a good
job, I might look to moderate my behavior, not repeat or enlarge it.
At the minimum, I would not assert that I was overwhelmingly popular.

Yet one reporter or columnist after another obligingly used the term
mandate, after Vice President Cheney delivered it from on high on
Wednesday. We'd expect that from Peggy Noonan (and more), but not
necessarily from the many mainstream reporters who endorsed the idea.
Here's David Sanger in today's New York Times: "Mr. Bush no longer
has to pretend that he possesses a clear electoral mandate. Because
for the first time in his presidency, he can argue that he has the
real thing."

Now, it's true that President Bush got more votes than any winning
candidate for president in history. He also had more people voting
against him than any winning candidate for president in history.

As the Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt observed, it was "the narrowest
win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916." And a
Gallup poll conducted after the election found that 63 percent of
voters would prefer to see Bush pursue policies that "both parties
support" compared to only 30 percent who want Bush to "advance the
Republican Party's agenda."

I've seen the word "mandate" a hundred times since the election but I
have not encountered anyone making the following point: With nearly
115 million votes cast, if just 140,000 had gone a different way in
Ohio we would not be talking about who is going to replace Colin
Powell in the Bush cabinet, we'd be calling for abolishing the
electoral college during President-elect Kerry's first term.

Lyn Nofziger, the longtime Reagan aide, observed in a New York Times
op ed that while Bush "would like to think that the voters gave him a
mandate," this is not true. "The president and his people," he added,
"are deluding themselves if they think his victory signifed general
approval of his record, even within the Republican Party...The fact
is, such a mandate will come about only if and when the president can
figure out how effectively to wield his clout." Note: the Reagan he
worked for was Ronald, not Ron.

Yet President Bush in his press conference on Thursday said he was
ready to spend all his "political capital" on bold policies. It seems
he now has new media capital to spend as well.

Greg Mitchell is the editor of E&P and author of seven books on
politics and history.
--
Yoshie

* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
* Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/>
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism