[MB.]

I don't understand the outcome of this election at all. I have been watching the Dukakis - Bush debate, (here: http://millercenter.org/academic/americ ... iography/3 ) I suppose one of the candidates had to win but it seems to me that Dukakis ran on a typical post-Carter platform (more healthcare, more UI, more detente, less war, anti-death penalty, pro-abortion, more gun control, trickledown doesn't work, "my opponent wants to extend tax cuts for the top 1%", the economy needs support, multilateralism, my opponent is a fascist, etc etc) and Bush ran on the usual Reaganesque platform (less subsidy, more war, more charity, more SDI, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, less gun control, the economy is fine with trickledown, we are moving forward the past was weak, america is strong, my opponent is a socialist, etc etc).

Bush at times sounded bloody medieval (DEATH for criminals!! NO decriminalization of the marijuana!!), and Dukhakis flatly contradicted himself several times, most notably about his SDI policy ('Star wars' is backwards and crazy and not an effective deterrent! yet I propose funding SDI research to the tune of 1 billion dollars!).

An interesting note is the absence of any discussion of environmental policy and almost no discussion of energy policy, presumably either because both parties had identical policies or because neither party had any policy in those areas.


Why have these silly non issues been so salient in American politics for over two decades? How were both Dukakis and Bush able to completely lie to the American public about Soviet capability under Gorbachev (straight fear mongering about military spending at a time when the USSR was collapsing)? Why are Americans so blood thirsty (death penalty, kill terrorists, more military)? Why do the Republicans and Democrats focus on these issues which it seems to me no intelligent person would consider controversial at all. What really shocked me about this debate, and the election itself, is that it appeared as though nothing had changed significantly between 1988 and 2008 with regard to the American platform between Republicans and Democrats. If the party machines have been churning out candidates who sell the same lies and demagoguery for twenty years, and if the effective result of this has been essentially 'business as usual' and status quo for two decades, why is anyone surprised that the economy is now collapsing and that the political landscape is partisan and hopelessly pedantic?

[Smilin' Dave]

I'm far from an expert, but wasn't Dukakis seen as been quite a ridiculous candidate? It's the age old problem that whoever won the debate doesn't decide the election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Du ... ontroversy

Why have these silly non issues been so salient in American politics for over two decades?

Nobody wants to debate things which are hard to understand, never mind solve. Besides, they might not make good sound bites.

Why are Americans so blood thirsty (death penalty, kill terrorists, more military)?

If you drill down into what Bush Snr. is saying it's not really bloodthirst you are looking at, it's a desire for order. For example criminals are to be executed (the ultimate in 'problem solved'), not because the audience likes to think about what happens to the criminal when he dies, but because he is now no longer a problem to think about. Drug legalisation challenges pre-conceived notions about legal and social norms. Talking up the Soviet threat oddly is part of the order, being an established threat with an established 'solution' (throw money at it). The possibility that the US/USSR relationsihp could change could have scared some so much that they desperately wanted the old Soviet bear back.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I vaguely remember being told about some incident regarding a Dukakis campaign ad featuring a black man - which was manipulated and twisted by the Bush campaign to make Dukakis look like a n***** lover. Then there was the incident with Dukakis riding in a tank. Both have variously been described as the most decisive incidents in the campaign. Not sure if thats true though.

[J Oswald]

I am jumping in late, but what I remember as really being Dukakis's downfall was the afore-mentioned tank incident. The campaign ad mentioned was attacking Dukakis for letting a convicted felon, Wille Horton, go on furlough. When on furlough, Horton assaulted and raped somebody, and then also committed armed robbery. The goal of the ad was to make Dukakis look soft on crime.

[U184]

That election was a farce, staged only because it had to happen. Bush had it sewn up before it ever started.
After 2 terms as vice he had a backed agenda to finish. He could have danced naked at that debate and still won.

As for the last questions that you pose. Do you really think that the public ever knows what the true story is? The intelligence community is pretty good at their job, you or I, might not understand why we did "blank" but there was a reason. A reason that was backed by several agencies and a board, or two, who all reached consensus.

[GooB]

Why have these silly non issues been so salient in American politics for over two decades?
...
Why do the Republicans and Democrats focus on these issues which it seems to me no intelligent person would consider controversial at all.

Rational Ignorance. Also see Down's Paradox.

When the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide.

So we let them drive the political debate with nonsense, because most don't think it cost effective to actualy look into the issues.

If the party machines have been churning out candidates who sell the same lies and demagoguery for twenty years, and if the effective result of this has been essentially 'business as usual' and status quo for two decades, why is anyone surprised that the economy is now collapsing and that the political landscape is partisan and hopelessly pedantic?

Insanity?