There follows a sampling of
the many letters Asia Times Online received in response
toWhy Americans love George W Bush(September 14) by Spengler. - ATol
Dear Dr Spengler: Like your namesake Oswald, you
are half-right again. I'm an American PhD, born in
Europe, and not obese. Yet I have the utmost admiration
and respect for George Bush. He is the Winston Churchill
of our age, or the Harry Truman. What he lacks in
glibness he makes up in sheer human decency, integrity
and shrewd political intuition. Lots of other
articulate, well-educated, and reasonably slender
Americans - even those living in "blue states" - feel
the same way. His opponent is a vain, foolish and
arrogant elitist. That is why Bush will win. Yet you are
half-right. Bush represents a populist form of
conservatism. But not just for low-brows and fat-heads.
Bush's conservatism has a centuries-old intellectual
lineage beginning in classical times, but including John
Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, the American founders,
and in modern times Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and
James Buchanan (among economists and political
thinkers). I believe you may not be familiar with their
works, but I urge you to study them. And by the way, the
English-speaking Abendlanden who share Bush's
democratic conservatism gehen nicht unter
... Robert Bass
This guy [Spengler]
has got to be one of the most ignorant people on the
planet. His entire story is horse crap. To try and paint
liberals and conservatives in the way he does is not
only disingenuous but disgusting. Many, many of this
country's [US] most beautiful people and celebrities are
conservative. Many of those inland red states produce
the bulk of our foreign travel both via the military and
via the State Department etc. You know that the bulk of
New Yorkers, Los Angeles, and Washingtonians are
poor and could never travel abroad, much less
want to. It is those conservatives and a very small
number of liberal elite that actually have the money to
go anywhere. Next time you actually meet one of these
rich and famous people ask them where they grew up. I
can almost guarantee you it wasn't Washington, New York,
Boston or California. People with money grew up learning
how to make it rather than learning how to get the
government to give it to them. After making it in life
they moved to those cities. Inland conservatives are fat
and ugly, huh? Liberals are beautiful, huh? Have you
seen Michael Moore? How about Ted Kennedy? If you call
that beautiful then you have issues. Chris
Floersch
[I] laughed through the entire
first part of the article in which you described the
typical George W Bush voter. You are probably correct,
but I do have a passport and have traveled to Europe and
a few other places. OK, I don't wear designer clothes
and I am 20 pounds overweight. You did get most of it
right! Bette S
Maybe I should send
you pictures of all of my friends that intend to vote
for President [George W] Bush. I think you would be
eating your words. That is the most silly and
narrow-minded article I have ever
read. VA
You mislead your readers
in many shameful ways but most offensively to me with
the following line: "Bush voters ... are less likely to
have attended a university than Kerry voters." CNN exit
polls from the 2000 election show that at the end of the
game [George W] Bush beat [Al] Gore among
college-educated voters by 6 points. Only among
high-school dropouts and post-graduate know-it-alls did
Gore have the upper hand. Expect nearly identical
results in November. Brad Kansas,
USA
What a treat to have this quality of
analysis coupled to Mel Brooks' allusions and statements
such as "obesity is an inland disease in the US". Thank
you for making the author [Spengler] available to us.
Dana Peck Goldendale,
Washington
Mr Spengler doesn't get [it] and
his characterization of non-elitist Americans is
snobbish and poorly informed. He should learn a bit more
about his subjects before judging them. He should learn,
as Americans have known for a long time, that the wisdom
of the common man is usually more cogent than those who
have partaken of post-modernism's fare. PS: I have a
passport, have lived and worked in the Middle East, East
Africa and Southeast Asia for a good portion of my life
yet I still will vote for G W Bush. Mark
Lacy, MD Flagstaff, Arizona
It is far
too early to make conclusions as to how America's
current foreign policy will play in Middle America.
There have been no tax increases, no inflation, no
conscription of masses of soldiers to die overseas. One
of the biggest divides in the electorate right now is
between those who are are deciding on cultural,
religious or ideological grounds (Bush) and those that
are more concerned with the details of the economic and
foreign situations ([John] Kerry). If more voters were
better informed, they would override their cultural
preference for Bush and vote for Kerry out of
self-interest. Remember that 40% of voters still believe
that Iraq was behind the September 11 [2001] attacks,
even though Mr Bush has admitted that Iraq was not
involved. When the consequences of the sort of
civilizational war you are talking about manifest
themselves, there is no reason to think that America
will follow Bush to the bitter end. The messianic
instincts currently being indulged could quickly turn
into isolationism when ordinary Americans see the
results. Brian Dunstan
After
reading Spengler's article I was horrified at his
unfounded elitist venom not only towards George W Bush,
but to America and Americans as well. Why doesn't he
come out from his hiding spot behind some communist
academic veil and have a real debate with real
Americans? His assertions are unfounded and insulting. I
have a BA [bachelor of arts] in international affairs,
an MA [master of arts] in US foreign policy, a JD
[doctorate of jurisprudence], and an LLM [master of
laws] in international law, I have lived abroad several
times and speak five languages, and I am a strong
supporter of George W Bush. While I don't agree with
everything, he is honest, strong, forthright, and yes,
forward-thinking. Those who belittle the progress in
Afghanistan or Iraq must realize that the results of
these conflicts can and will only be judged properly in
a historical context. Spengler's hypocrisy is a Hegelian
dialectic itself and his understanding of the American
people is about as good as his knowledge of the starting
grid at Daytona [motor race in Florida]. Get off your
high horse and stop eating bowls of communist caviar and
open your mind. You're a liberal, isn't that what you
are supposed to do? Jonathan
Weinberger
Enjoyed your article about how
America loves GW. Have to disagree about how fat and
dumb the people in the flyover states are. These are the
people that won all those wars so the sissies in Europe
and on our coasts can suck on lattes are whatever else
they like to suck on so much. You are very much
mistaken. Watch some NFL [National Football League]
football or NHL [National Hockey League] hockey some
weekend if your not too busy sucking on something. Not
too fat or stupid. Just keep underestimating us.
John
I am a female New Yorker with
four adult children. I have an associate's degree, my
late husband had a PD [doctorate of psychology] in
family therapy, and all four children graduated from
college. I was born in New York City, live an hour away
now on Long Island. The five of us will be voting for
George W Bush (as well as one daughter's fiance, another
college graduate). You can't get any "blue-er" than New
York. Laurel St James, New
York
Where did you ever get your opinions
about Bush voters? We belong to the country-club set;
have traveled out of the country on vacation three times
in the last year; and have dozens of friends who are all
like-minded and will enthusiastically vote for President
Bush. Open your eyes and your mind to see a general
uprising of support for a great president. Mary
Ellen McLoughlin
Spengler is spot on with
his observations of why President Bush is popular
despite world opinion. He makes excellent points
regarding Americans, because as emigrants they turned
their backs on Europe, are different from Europeans. The
point of noting the importance of the concept [of]
"evil" by Americans is especially prescient. Spengler
omitted one important reason why the "coastal elites" no
longer dominate the political agenda despite their
control, at the leadership level, of virtually all the
cultural institutions like academia, labor unions, the
mainstream press and TV, some important clergy, and half
of government. It is because of the rise of Internet
blogs, conservative talk radio, some alternative cable
news networks, especially Fox, plus a few influential
newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and Washington
Times that it is now impossible for liberals to control
public opinion. Finally, the liberal-agenda stranglehold
has been broken and is now a thing of the past. For
example, CBS was outed by bloggers when they tried their
hit job on Bush and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth got
their message out despite big media's attempt to spike
the story. And [John] Kerry's lie about spending
Christmas in Cambodia and his anti-military record
[were] unmasked and his phoniness made apparent. Old
media [have] lost to new media where Internet search
engines can easily expose the phonies by using their own
words from the past. Kerry is running from his past, but
he cannot hide from it. Robert M
Burnett Las Vegas, Nevada
"That
surprises outside observers of US politics, who can see
that the Democrats are cleverer, better dressed and
better looking." (By the way, "more clever" is
preferred, the "erer" repeat is best avoided.) Ah, but
the Dems are too clever by half - they are so busy being
clever, they forget to be smart. A famous English author
said it best: "sound and fury signifying nothing".
"Better dressed and better looking" - yes, they put a
lot into their appearances. But they are rather like the
Hollywood movie sets they infest: it's all a facade.
Look beyond the surface and there is - nothing. Take
Senator [John] Kerry (please - I mean he would make a
fine EU official): behind that sartorial splendor lies
naught but an empty suit. Or, a perhaps better phrase
takes a 180-degree view - the (would-be) emperor has no
clothes. We in Middle America may be fat (a factoid: the
leading health problem among the poor in America is
obesity), but that doesn't make us stupid.
William Naegele Albuquerque, New
Mexico
Spengler may know a thing or two about
European intellectual history, but he doesn't know much
about guns. I haven't followed the issue too closely,
since there's all this Swift Boat and Bush's National
Guard controversy to deal with, but I believe the Drudge
Report's contention that the gun Kerry was holding would
be illegal has pretty well been discounted. As a
gun-owning "red state" dweller, the gun in question
looks like your average shotgun, not much different than
one I own. Of course, [Matt] Drudge is one of those
coastal-dwelling elites, so it isn't too shocking that
he doesn't know much about guns. What is shocking is
that Spengler apparently didn't double-check the
pronouncement of a well-known partisan hack. I recommend
that Spengler spend more time shooting and less time
reading Drudge Goethe (who is a vastly overrated poet in
my opinion.) Not only is Spengler confused about guns,
he also gets why Bush will win wrong. As I said, I'm a
born-and-bred red-stater who lives in my home state by
choice. I do own a passport, have lived in Asia and
speak Thai, so I'm a bit of an anomaly, I guess.
However, I am putting on weight, so I think I've got a
better grasp on why folks here are going to vote for
Bush than Spengler does. He writes: "The passionate
patriotism of ordinary Americans springs from their
conviction that the American state is the shield of
common folk." I hope Spengler doesn't really believe
that. The fact is the average red-state denizen believes
the American state is their enemy. Any government, be it
federal, state, county or municipal is their enemy,
because it imposes all sorts of restrictions on them,
from gun control [to] taking prayer from school,
imposing affirmative action, and worst of all, taxation.
Of course, a lot of this is hyperbole; the last time I
checked the state I live in actually gets more money
back from the federal government than it pays in taxes,
but everyone here is convinced the federal government is
taking too much from them. Bush, a man who graduated
from that paragon of east-coast elitism, Yale, and
vacationed in Maine, and the Republican Party have
tapped into this resentment, and that is why they are
going to win the election. On that point, I suspect
Spengler is right. Aiontay Norman, Oklahoma
With ignorant idiots like [Spengler] writing
for you guys, I feel sorry for anyone that trusts
"Asia's most trusted
newspaper". Benjamin
Not a bad
article, but I believe the education, weight and mode of
dress [are] about equal - can the author cite any
studies? Some of the best thinkers in the US are
conservatives (Democrats don't have to think, all they
have to do is march in lockstep and spout dogma and
gibberish if questioned). As a matter of fact I don't
see how a reasonable, educated person could vote for a
Democrat. And I've always been considered a pretty
snappy dresser for a right-wing whack
job! WarPig
Michael Moore is a
prime physical example of the description you offer for
the "flyover territory" Americans that you present as
hardcore Bush supporters. They would be very
disappointed - probably the best reason for them to get
into a new exercise routine. Good article, however, and
a good assessment of what drives the American
public. Larry P White
Interesting
column. While I disagree with your assessment of the
appearance and intelligence of the population of
"America's heartland", you are correct that there are
profound differences between us and those that live on
the coasts. Our ancestors were mostly farmers and those
that lived in cities near farming communities.
Regardless of the level of their intelligence, our
ancestors generally had a difficult life and generally
worked hard. The things they valued in life most were
not nuanced: You did what you were told as a child. You
worked hard as an adult. You told the truth. You kept
your promises. These were the central truths of
Midwestern life. If you did not live up to these central
tenets you were nothing. Which is not to say that
Midwesterners are not smart. They come from the same
genetic pool as "coasties" - indeed many of the
"coasties" came and still come from the Midwest.
Moreover, the Midwest has the best academic test scores
in the nation. It's just that we think it's smarter to
value work, truthfulness and honor than it is to value
being smart. Being intelligent says nothing about
whether you are good. Also, being attractive is
obviously not something that demonstrates merit either.
And while I haven't investigated your assertion that
those in the "red states" are fatter than those that
live on the coast, Midwesterners have no monopoly on
obesity: see, eg, Ted Kennedy and Orson Welles. It is
true that the values I have mentioned are aspirational
goals. We have our share of crazies and criminals. But
most are anchored by the values that were taught by our
parents. And ironically, I think these values are more
European than American. After all, it was generally
Europeans who brought them here ... Just as the
unimportant relics of European life trickle down to
2004, so too do the more important ones. Here's where
you are right: Bush will likely get re-elected - or if
not at least overwhelmingly win in the central United
States - because he is perceived as being truer to the
old values than Kerry is. We'll take imperfection over
what we see as insincerity any day of the week. Better
someone we trust and we think is basically honest than
someone who is just intelligent, attractive, and svelte.
And one more thought. Many enterprising Asians are now
immigrating to the Midwest and creating promising lives
for themselves. The ones that succeed seem to be the
ones that share Midwestern values. And I'll bet that
many of them will not vote for John Kerry. Kenneth
H Bayliss St Cloud, Minnesota
I enjoy
Spengler's observations, but his analysis of why
Americans love George Bush is so full of stereotypes
that I almost gagged on them. I'm a white male American,
Midwestern, not overweight but not terribly handsome,
high-school educated, well read but definitely not a
member of "the elite". I will vote for John Kerry. Yes,
the less-educated white males in the American interior
do support Bush, but to extend this observation to
stereotype Kerry supporters as an "attractive, witty and
affluent elite" is pure laziness. George Bush's support
among women is low, among blacks almost non-existent.
Bush support among blue-collar workers in the "blue"
states is far from overwhelming. His base of power is
white males, and a Martian glancing the headlines would
quickly see that his policies overwhelmingly favor the
wealthy. Yet somehow in this bizarro-world campaign
season he is seen as the candidate of the common
struggling salt-of-the-earth Midwesterner while Kerry is
labeled as elite. And don't get me started on Spengler's
contention that Americans don't use their guns
violently, except for "certain minority groups". Does he
mean that these certain minorities aren't Americans?
This after he decries European nationalism (correctly):
"Love of country means love of one's race and culture,
the narcissistic self-worship of tribalism." Yes,
Americans have historically seen things in black and
white, good and evil, but when listing those values to
say that "slavery was evil" just shows a poor
understanding of American history. Among overweight
interior-dwellers from the southern states you could
argue that it's still not exactly a core value. The
American Revolution was fought just as much over the
right to enslave and exterminate non-whites as it was
over freedom. I really thought I could count on Spengler
for fresh observations about America. This rehash of
stereotypes from the right-wing publicity machine was
terribly disappointing - I could just as well have been
watching Fox News. Dale Andersen
I
just finished reading Spengler's superficial (and
profoundly racist) assessment of why he thinks Americans
will vote for Bush. Spengler could not be more off the
mark (if my experience is any indication). I won't spend
the time rebuking the bigoted view that all Republicans
are stupid fat racists because it is so utterly
ridiculous - and very ironic given the context. I will,
however, comment on why he is mistaken on a) why
Americans will vote for Bush, b) why the rest of the
world can't figure it out, and c) why Spengler's
prediction of a close election is wrong. a)
Americans will vote for Bush because he is a superior
candidate. John Kerry has been proved to be, as we say
in America, an empty suit. This is now obvious to anyone
who follows American politics and it is reflected in the
polls. b) The rest of the world cannot understand
why "Americans" will vote for George Bush because they
still do not even grasp the simple concept that there is
really no such thing as an "American". As any foreigner
with a passport (who's actually been to America) will
tell you, an American is a Mexican, African, German,
Italian, Pole, Iranian, Swede, Chinese, Vietnamese (99%
of whom intend to vote for Bush, incidentally),
Argentine, Iraqi, French, blah blah blah - to my
knowledge, there are few indigenous "Americans". For
instance, I happen to be a German-American. The idea
that there exists this homogenous "American" is foolish,
xenophobic and, frankly, ludicrous on the part of many
who do not comprehend this simple but interesting fact.
Finally, on the point of why the rest of the world will
not understand why "Americans" will vote for George Bush
- the world press is exceedingly unreliable, if not
outright dishonest - right up there with alJazeera.
Which is fine with us, we don't care what the rest of
the world accepts as a free, and reliable press - you
get what you pay for. We, however, know the difference
because of course, we invented it - should you have any
question in this regard I suggest you Google Dan Rather
right now - Americans are far less tolerant of
propaganda and government-subsidized media; much less a
pompous ass like Rather who traffics in lies and
innuendo - because he's shilled for the Democratic
candidate, he's finished. In any case, I've been
watching "your media" and the rest of the world is
rightly surprised at the polls because they've been led
to believe, by government-owned media such as the BBC
[British Broadcasting Corp], Kerry is a superior
candidate. This is not so in America - we have all the
facts and it is obvious to most "Americans" that
Kerry is unfit for the job. c) Bush in a landslide.
If it happens, this fact would prove a great many of the
sophisticated, liberal elite which Spengler alludes to
will be voting Republican - an eventuality that will
expose Spengler's proposition for what it is - lousy
reporting sprinkled with xenophobia, racism and bigotry.
Oh, and by the way, yes I have a passport, no I am
not overweight, yes I have lived abroad and in the
Orient, yes I have a graduate degree and beyond, yes I
speak two languages, and surprise - I'm a Republican
(there's a lot more but I'm sure you wouldn't understand
- I'm an "American"). DFM
I agree
with the bulk of Spengler's article ... but I am a
little less sure that it will come to pass that God's
Instrument of World Freedom (shudder) will be
re-elected. It might be interesting for Spengler to
include WacoTribune.com [on] his list of selected
reading to take a pulse of the local mindset here in
"Bush Country". Not to say that there is rioting in the
streets, but the natives are getting a tad restless. As
an ex-Deaniac, I am seriously torn between voting for
Bush-lite, or maybe just doing some Bush-ups (hacking
brush) on election day. Leaning toward the
latter. Rachel Hassold Waco,
Texas
