January 22, 2005

Bracing Myself

Go back and look at the polls taken in 2004 just before the presidential election.

You found that all of the polls funded and published by news organizations such as The Washington Post, ABC News and The New York Times told of what looked to be a one-term presidency by the slimmest of margins. Polls from Fox News and the Christian Coalition and other organizations accepted as conservative most likely reported the opposite in their own polls. This is a theory of mine, and I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

These polls extend farther than being polls of convenience, but rather polls of organization approval. The real question: Does the margin of error include a margin of spurn?

Scenario. The pollster calls and you have the time to answer some questions. But you discover that the person on the other end is doing the poll on behalf of an organization of which you disapprove. You're a conservative Christian; a liberal atheist; an anarchist; but you vote and you're not about to help a group with a radically different point of view from your own.

That might be a giant leap, but I think it's a valid question. The Washington Post points to poll that questions whether the president has the clear mandate that he claims. With a difference of three percent, the margin of trust, or 'political capital,' one believes he had gained in the election is slim at best. The task of uniting Americans has to go much deeper than commanding, 'I'm your leader, now follow.'

But that seems just what President Bush did.

'America has spoken, and I'm humbled by the trust and the confidence of my fellow citizens. With that trust comes a duty to serve all Americans, and I will do my best to fulfill that duty every day as your President,' the president said in his acceptance speech the day following the election.

But the president's version of serving all Americans doesn't include all Americans. It doesn't include those liberals in Los Angeles...doesn't include the liberals is Oregon, the pinkos in San Francisco, the democrats in New York and Chicago. It doesn't even include some in his own party like pro-choice and Log Cabin Republicans. It includes the oilmen in Dallas and Houston and the military subcontractors at Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root. It includes the Saudi royal family, and they're not even Americans.

Nevertheless, we have another four years to look forward to in the United States under a Bush White House. The usual suspects remain in positions of power, but shell-gamed into various posts around Washington. Arguably, similar ideals will reign in this new version of the administration with no apparent changes in ideology, policy creation or implementation.

For my sake, my contemporaries' sakes, my family's sake, my pocket's sake, the world's sake, I hope at least a minor epiphany is on the horizon for President Bush. But I'm a true pragmatist. Hope for the best, but expect the worst. That brings me back to my original point, though. This election did nothing to win my trust simply because this president was re-elected. I'm just as fearful of the next four years as I was of the first four.

- Rich