Excellent point by Frank Lunz in the Washington Times about the Bush victory. Having observed that the main reason was Bush's credibility as a man who meant what he said, he then demolishes one of the principal canards presented by his detractors:

' Some will claim that Mr. Bush won on Tuesday because he waged a campaign of fear. The exact opposite was the case. Americans turned to him precisely because they saw him as the antidote to that fear. Polling over the past few months and the results on Election Day itself illustrated an essential principle of electoral success: It is no longer enough to say no. Voters need someone who will say yes. Mr. Kerry became a symbol for voters opposed to the president's policies and procedures, but not much else. Conversely, Mr. Bush became the vehicle for those who wanted an affirmative, proactive, preventative approach to homeland security. Americans will tell you that it was Mr. Bush, not Mr. Kerry, who offered the hope that personal security could be restored. And in this election, hope won.'

This is indeed surely one of the secrets of electoral success.Voters are looking for a politician who offers the prospect of constructive change or successful defence against attack. They do not warm to a candidate whose pitch is to diss the other guy, as there's no point in voting for him. Like the rest of the anti-Bush analysis, the claim that fear was his key to victory says nothing sensible about the election and instead everything about the people making it.

Posted by melanie at November 5, 2004