With the election over, people are still discussing why the
cards fell in favor of President Bush and what his re-election
means for American politics.
On Tuesday evening, to a group of students and community
members, three UCLA faculty members came forward to present their
analysis of the election and expectations for the future.
The professors spent the evening “trying to understand
this election in the broader context of American politics,”
said Mark Peterson, chairman of the UCLA Department of Public
Policy, who made a presentation at the event.
Peterson and his colleagues Frank Gilliam, associate vice
chancellor and professor of political science, and Lynn Vavreck,
associate professor of political science, looked at the election
from three different angles and brought in statistics dating back
nearly a century to make their points.
The results of this past election and the changing political
environment may have profound effects on the future of the
nation.
“Elections are portrayed as significant and
earth-shattering; this one really was,” said Fernando
Torres-Gil, associate dean of the UCLA School of Public Affairs.
“It’s of major importance for the way this country will
go.”
“We cannot underestimate George Bush. He’s smart,
he’s sharp and he’s committed,” Torres-Gil added.
“He might make some revolutionary changes in social
policy.”
And he will have the backing in the Senate and the House of
Representatives to do so.
“George Bush may now have a solid majority in
Senate,” Peterson said. “The Democrats do not have a
solid minority for using a filibuster and keeping it going. … The
Democrats may be thwarted.”
And with this advantage, Bush has the potential to overhaul the
entire tax, court and health care system as well as privatize
Social Security, Peterson said. And all these are changes that will
have a profound effect on Americans, whether you agree with
Bush’s policies or not.
But though we may like to emphasize the changes our government
has seen since its inception, Peterson said that “in many
ways our politics may not have changed as much as we would like to
think.”
In what was admittedly a provocative piece of information,
Peterson said the states that had gone to Bush in the past election
were almost identical to those that had been members of the
Confederate prior to the Civil War.
And out of this developed a larger discussion about the
demographics of the voters from different regions.
“We need to remind ourselves not only in California but in
Los Angeles, that the world out there looks a lot different,”
Gilliam said.
He specifically mentioned the heavily religious culture in much
of the Midwest and South that is evident simply by turning on the
television in those areas.
One way that Gilliam sought to make sense of the recent election
was to examine it through the lens of narratives that Americans use
to help comprehend their lives.
“This talk is rooted in the sort of narrative, the kind of
stories we tell as Americans to make sense and understand our
lives,” Gilliam said.
And in this election, voters turned to the familiar “mob
at the gate” story.
“There’s a mob at the gate; someone better protect
the gate,” Gilliam said. “People didn’t have to
think (Bush) was the smartest guy. … He was holding back the mobs
at the gate.”
And this type of appeal may ring particularly for voters in the
middle of the country.
“You can’t be afraid about the mob at the gate
unless you live inside the gate,” Vavreck said.
One of Bush’s major successes in the election was being
able to relate to many voters.
“He was able to articulate a set of values and people can
see where he is going. They can relate to that,” Gilliam
said.
This is also where the Democrats failed and where they must
change their tactics in the future.
“The left has to rethink how they talk about American
life,” Gilliam said.