Why President Bush was reelected?
FUSE Hiroshi / Journalist
December 10, 2004
The result of the US presidential election reaffirmed the strength of the conservative base in the US with President George W. Bush securing his second term by aggressively propagating "war against terrorism". Bush's victory is likely to push US foreign policy further toward unilateralism through the next four years especially with Colin Powell, soft-liner Secretary of State, resigning in January.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a favorite with Japanese diplomats, is also leaving the administration. Condoleezza Rice, the successor of Powell, might not be more hawkish than Powell, yet North Korea has long kept a hostile eye on her. We may have to keep in mind a scenario in which Japanese policy designers are flustered by the incoming Secretary's uncompromising approach toward North Korea.
In this year's election, the Republicans have won a sweeping victory in both houses of Congress. President Bush, though he had to fight against the growing tide of anti-war sentiment, won against Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, by an impressive margin of 3.5 million votes. Bush must be gleeful all the more because he has been rankled with the popular-vote loss of half million against Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, in the 2000 election.
Why were the Republicans able to rack up the overwhelming victory? According to US news media, Karl Rove, Bush's brain and the chief campaign strategist, had estimated that about four million right-wing Christians did not vote in 2000 and had ordered his team to ferret out these potential voters and make them go to the polls. The get-to-the-polls strategy enabled the Republicans to garner considerable ballots from the conservative base.
Though the explanation seems to be too plausible to assume it all to be true, yet unless this Rove tactic is taken into account, it is difficult to explain why the Democrats came short of their expectations in spite of the steep rise in the voting rate, for swing voters are generally considered as leaning toward the Democrats rather than the Republicans. If the Republicans won because of the Rove strategy, we may have to conclude that the United States is a country where the conservatives stand up and take a unified action whenever the odds are against them.
However, I am inclined to think that the decisive element in the election was the two candidates' ability to express themselves in simple and understandable language. Senator Kerry, while criticizing the Iraq war, insisted that he would be a better commander-in-chief than Bush once he was elected. On the other hand, the Bush side detracted Kerry's credibility by pointing out his voting records on the Gulf and Iraq Wars and discredited him as a flip-flopper, while never wavering in their portrayal of Bush as the forceful protector of the country however poor Bush's debate performance might have been in comparison with Kerry.
The image of a strong President must have gripped the heart of "security moms" who are conscious of their family's safety as well as the swing voters who are relatively uninterested in foreign policy. As a matter of fact, I found it difficult to discern any differences in the two candidates' arguments. Probably Kerry could not make his position clear enough because Americans are imbued with the social code that has existed in America since long before 9/11. Almost all Americans believe that at the time when their fellow countrymen are fighting on foreign soil to meet their death, they should never criticize their government. Senator Kerry had had to challenge the tacitly agreed upon social rule in order to demonstrate that he was different from Bush.
The election reminded me of the one that took place in Israel in 1992. Then, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir who led the right-wing Likud, was undaunted to promulgate the Greater Israel policy by accepting a legion of Jewish immigrants of Russian origin. By tactfully dodging negotiations with the Arab leaders and by placing the prime importance on the Israeli security, he pursued what might be termed as hedgehog-style diplomacy.
On the other hand, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, who led the Labor Party, did not give an impression of bigotry as Shamir did. He had been Chief of the General Staff of the military during the Third Middle East War and had an impeccable military career. Mr. Rabin won a sweeping victory in the election by permeating the image that he was the person who was able to pursue peace while protecting the country at all cost.
It is interesting to compare the election in Israel in 1992 and the current one in the US. Senator Kerry can be likened to Mr. Rabin and President Bush to Mr. Shamir. Then, Senator Kerry, who appealed to fight against terrorism with a wider and nuanced perspective rather than to encapsulate the US in the narrow hedgehog diplomacy, must have had a good chance to win. The reason why he could not might, as was pointed out many times from the beginning of the campaign, be the lack of personal charm to capture the hearts and minds of voters.
The writer is an editorial writer of the Mainichi Shimbun.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a favorite with Japanese diplomats, is also leaving the administration. Condoleezza Rice, the successor of Powell, might not be more hawkish than Powell, yet North Korea has long kept a hostile eye on her. We may have to keep in mind a scenario in which Japanese policy designers are flustered by the incoming Secretary's uncompromising approach toward North Korea.
In this year's election, the Republicans have won a sweeping victory in both houses of Congress. President Bush, though he had to fight against the growing tide of anti-war sentiment, won against Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, by an impressive margin of 3.5 million votes. Bush must be gleeful all the more because he has been rankled with the popular-vote loss of half million against Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, in the 2000 election.
Why were the Republicans able to rack up the overwhelming victory? According to US news media, Karl Rove, Bush's brain and the chief campaign strategist, had estimated that about four million right-wing Christians did not vote in 2000 and had ordered his team to ferret out these potential voters and make them go to the polls. The get-to-the-polls strategy enabled the Republicans to garner considerable ballots from the conservative base.
Though the explanation seems to be too plausible to assume it all to be true, yet unless this Rove tactic is taken into account, it is difficult to explain why the Democrats came short of their expectations in spite of the steep rise in the voting rate, for swing voters are generally considered as leaning toward the Democrats rather than the Republicans. If the Republicans won because of the Rove strategy, we may have to conclude that the United States is a country where the conservatives stand up and take a unified action whenever the odds are against them.
However, I am inclined to think that the decisive element in the election was the two candidates' ability to express themselves in simple and understandable language. Senator Kerry, while criticizing the Iraq war, insisted that he would be a better commander-in-chief than Bush once he was elected. On the other hand, the Bush side detracted Kerry's credibility by pointing out his voting records on the Gulf and Iraq Wars and discredited him as a flip-flopper, while never wavering in their portrayal of Bush as the forceful protector of the country however poor Bush's debate performance might have been in comparison with Kerry.
The image of a strong President must have gripped the heart of "security moms" who are conscious of their family's safety as well as the swing voters who are relatively uninterested in foreign policy. As a matter of fact, I found it difficult to discern any differences in the two candidates' arguments. Probably Kerry could not make his position clear enough because Americans are imbued with the social code that has existed in America since long before 9/11. Almost all Americans believe that at the time when their fellow countrymen are fighting on foreign soil to meet their death, they should never criticize their government. Senator Kerry had had to challenge the tacitly agreed upon social rule in order to demonstrate that he was different from Bush.
The election reminded me of the one that took place in Israel in 1992. Then, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir who led the right-wing Likud, was undaunted to promulgate the Greater Israel policy by accepting a legion of Jewish immigrants of Russian origin. By tactfully dodging negotiations with the Arab leaders and by placing the prime importance on the Israeli security, he pursued what might be termed as hedgehog-style diplomacy.
On the other hand, Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, who led the Labor Party, did not give an impression of bigotry as Shamir did. He had been Chief of the General Staff of the military during the Third Middle East War and had an impeccable military career. Mr. Rabin won a sweeping victory in the election by permeating the image that he was the person who was able to pursue peace while protecting the country at all cost.
It is interesting to compare the election in Israel in 1992 and the current one in the US. Senator Kerry can be likened to Mr. Rabin and President Bush to Mr. Shamir. Then, Senator Kerry, who appealed to fight against terrorism with a wider and nuanced perspective rather than to encapsulate the US in the narrow hedgehog diplomacy, must have had a good chance to win. The reason why he could not might, as was pointed out many times from the beginning of the campaign, be the lack of personal charm to capture the hearts and minds of voters.
The writer is an editorial writer of the Mainichi Shimbun.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
何故ブッシュは再選されたか？
布施 広 / 毎日新聞社 論説委員
2004年 12月 10日
米大統領選は「テロとの戦争」を全面に出すブッシュ大統領が再選を果たし、米国社会における保守層の底固さを印象づけた。２期目のブッシュ政権は国際協調派のパウエル国務長官が辞任することもあって、さらに単独行動の傾向を強めるのではないか、という見方が強い。
外務省に人気があったアーミテージ国務副長官も政権を去る。ライス新国務長官がパウエル氏より強硬とは一概に言えないが、北朝鮮は昔からライス氏を警戒している。新長官が北朝鮮政策などで厳しい態度を打ち出し、日本を慌てさせるシナリオも想定外ではないだろう。
さて選挙の方は、連邦議会も含めて共和党の快勝だった。厭戦ムードの高まりに苦労したブッシュ大統領は、結果的に一般投票（全米総得票）で民主党候補のケリー上院議員に約３５０万票の大差をつけた。前回（00年）選挙では、総得票でゴア副大統領（当時）に50万票余り負けての当選だっただけに、再選のうれしさもひとしおだろう。
ブッシュ氏の勝因は何だったのか。米マスコミによると、大統領の知恵袋ともいえるカール・ローブ上級顧問が、キリスト教右派の票の掘り起こしを命じたという。前回選挙で投票しなかった右派の有権者を約４００万人と見積もり、彼らを確実に投票させることで保守票を上積みしたというのだ。
やや出来過ぎた話のようだが、この「ローブ作戦」を考慮しないと、投票率が上がったのに民主党が伸び悩んだ理由を説明できない。一般に浮動票は民主党支持が多いとされるからだ。ローブ氏の作戦が成功したのなら、米国はいざという時は保守派が立ち上がる国ということになる。
だが、簡単に言うと「分かりやすさ」が明暗を分けたのではないか。ケリー氏はイラク戦争を批判しながら「自分の方がいい最高司令官になれる」と主張した。これに対しブッシュ陣営は、湾岸戦争やイラク戦争に対するケリー氏の対応を「フリップ・フロップ」（態度が変わりやすい）と批判し、いかに公開討論でケリー氏に見劣りしようと、愚直に国を守るイメージを強調した。
これが、家族の安全に気を使う「セキュリティー・ママ」たちや外交問題に比較的関心のない浮動層を引き付けたのだろう。ケリー氏とブッシュ氏の主張は実際のところ大差がないが、01年の９・11テロ以前から米国には「同朋が死地に向かっている間は国の政策を批判しない」という不文律めいたものがあった。特色を出さんがために、ケリー氏はこの不文律に挑戦せざるを得なかったのだ。
個人的には、92年のイスラエル総選挙を思い出した。当時、右派リクードを率いるシャミル首相は、ロシア系ユダヤ人を大量に受け入れて「大イスラエル」構想へまい進。アラブとの交渉は適当にかわし、イスラエルの安全を絶対的に重視する「ハリネズミ型」の国家運営を続けていた。
これに対し労働党党首だったラビン氏は、第３次中東戦争時の軍参謀総長で、軍歴は申し分なく、シャミル氏ほど頑迷固陋な感じもしない。ラビン氏は「和平を推進するが、国の安全は断固守る」というイメージをうまく浸透させて、選挙に大勝するのだ。
ベトナム戦争の英雄のケリー氏をラビン氏に、ブッシュ大統領をシャミル氏に見立ててみると興味深い。当時のイスラエルと今の米国の事情を考えると、ハリネズミ的な防衛意識に閉じこもらず、もう少し広い視野でテロと戦うことを訴えたケリー氏には、十分勝機があった。勝ち切れなかったのは、最初から言われていたように、候補者としての魅力に欠けたためかもしれない。
（筆者は毎日新聞社論説委員）
外務省に人気があったアーミテージ国務副長官も政権を去る。ライス新国務長官がパウエル氏より強硬とは一概に言えないが、北朝鮮は昔からライス氏を警戒している。新長官が北朝鮮政策などで厳しい態度を打ち出し、日本を慌てさせるシナリオも想定外ではないだろう。
さて選挙の方は、連邦議会も含めて共和党の快勝だった。厭戦ムードの高まりに苦労したブッシュ大統領は、結果的に一般投票（全米総得票）で民主党候補のケリー上院議員に約３５０万票の大差をつけた。前回（00年）選挙では、総得票でゴア副大統領（当時）に50万票余り負けての当選だっただけに、再選のうれしさもひとしおだろう。
ブッシュ氏の勝因は何だったのか。米マスコミによると、大統領の知恵袋ともいえるカール・ローブ上級顧問が、キリスト教右派の票の掘り起こしを命じたという。前回選挙で投票しなかった右派の有権者を約４００万人と見積もり、彼らを確実に投票させることで保守票を上積みしたというのだ。
やや出来過ぎた話のようだが、この「ローブ作戦」を考慮しないと、投票率が上がったのに民主党が伸び悩んだ理由を説明できない。一般に浮動票は民主党支持が多いとされるからだ。ローブ氏の作戦が成功したのなら、米国はいざという時は保守派が立ち上がる国ということになる。
だが、簡単に言うと「分かりやすさ」が明暗を分けたのではないか。ケリー氏はイラク戦争を批判しながら「自分の方がいい最高司令官になれる」と主張した。これに対しブッシュ陣営は、湾岸戦争やイラク戦争に対するケリー氏の対応を「フリップ・フロップ」（態度が変わりやすい）と批判し、いかに公開討論でケリー氏に見劣りしようと、愚直に国を守るイメージを強調した。
これが、家族の安全に気を使う「セキュリティー・ママ」たちや外交問題に比較的関心のない浮動層を引き付けたのだろう。ケリー氏とブッシュ氏の主張は実際のところ大差がないが、01年の９・11テロ以前から米国には「同朋が死地に向かっている間は国の政策を批判しない」という不文律めいたものがあった。特色を出さんがために、ケリー氏はこの不文律に挑戦せざるを得なかったのだ。
個人的には、92年のイスラエル総選挙を思い出した。当時、右派リクードを率いるシャミル首相は、ロシア系ユダヤ人を大量に受け入れて「大イスラエル」構想へまい進。アラブとの交渉は適当にかわし、イスラエルの安全を絶対的に重視する「ハリネズミ型」の国家運営を続けていた。
これに対し労働党党首だったラビン氏は、第３次中東戦争時の軍参謀総長で、軍歴は申し分なく、シャミル氏ほど頑迷固陋な感じもしない。ラビン氏は「和平を推進するが、国の安全は断固守る」というイメージをうまく浸透させて、選挙に大勝するのだ。
ベトナム戦争の英雄のケリー氏をラビン氏に、ブッシュ大統領をシャミル氏に見立ててみると興味深い。当時のイスラエルと今の米国の事情を考えると、ハリネズミ的な防衛意識に閉じこもらず、もう少し広い視野でテロと戦うことを訴えたケリー氏には、十分勝機があった。勝ち切れなかったのは、最初から言われていたように、候補者としての魅力に欠けたためかもしれない。
（筆者は毎日新聞社論説委員）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟