Bush's triumph

You assert that the majority of the American electorate is "base" and that Republicans count on this essential baseness to win office. Yet that conclusion, like all others, goes without critical examination or factual support. Perhaps that is why Americans and the rest of the world still view Bangladesh as a third world phenomenon (you see, we can make sweeping and unfounded generalisations just as easily as you; irritating, isn't it?).

You state: "If more Americans trust the economy to Bush than to Kerry despite the evidence of the past four years, if more Americans believe that the war in Iraq has made them safer, if more Americans believe that Bush is a steadfast and rock-ribbed leader in the war on terror, if more Americans believe that the most important thing is to deny civil rights to homosexuals, if more Americans believe that the president served more honourably than Kerry in Vietnam -- then the Democrats can't win." In fact, the economy is rarely, if ever, materially impacted by the incumbent's policies. The business cycle, the Federal Reserve, and any other number of other factors play a much larger determining role in the health of the economy. Presidents get far too much credit, and far too much blame, for economic conditions. What's more, Sept. 11 impacted the US economy in a fundamental way, terrified investors and businesses, and injected more than a bit of uncertainty into the picture that no one is responsible for except Bin Laden. The electorate realises that, to their credit, and decided not to penalise Bush for events that were beyond his control. Apparently you believe all of these complex issues are capable of being summed up with simple declaratory sentences which offer no critical reasoning, yet notice how I refrain from calling you "base." Next, regarding Iraq, most people realise the precarious nature of the situation. But what is worse - turning a blind eye to the worst dictator in the world, or confronting him after giving him innumerable chances to allow the inspectors to continue their inspections unfettered? Do not insult our intelligence by positioning the issue as a choice between a benevolent ruler who did nothing wrong and a war. Hussein, whatever the truth about WMD, was a murderer who, on humanitarian grounds alone, deserved to be overthrown. If you prefer him, why don't you import him to Bangladesh and elect him to govern you?

Regarding gay marriage, certainly it galvanised the conservative base of the party. But by itself, given Kerry's position against gay marriage himself, it would have had little impact had Kerry given them any reason to vote for him other than that he was not George Bush.

Lastly, you place far too much importance on the Vietnam issue - very few people cared either about Bush's National Guard service or Kerry's service in Vietnam. Both served, and appear to have done their duty.

Zafar Sobhan seems to be confused about the purpose of voting (What's the matter with America? Nov 05 2004). Free elections are held to find out which candidate voters believe will do the best job for them, not to ratify the views of a particular candidate, party, or point of view. Those who voted on the merits of presidential candidates, Bush and Kerry, rejected the views espoused by Mr. Kerry, the Democrats , and Mr. Sobhan. Claiming that there is something "wrong" with people who voted for Mr. Bush is pointless. There is no scale on which voters' freely-made choices can be labelled "better" or "worse" in the way that 10 pounds of rice are better than 9 pounds.

If the Democrats want to attract some voters who rejected its candidates, it must speak more clearly to them. If nothing else, it (and Mr. Sobhan) must stop lecturing, a condescending behaviour that puts off

people who might otherwise be persuaded. Their success will be determined by the next election.

Voters may regret their choices after the fact, but neither Mr. Sobhan nor anyone else can claim to be more consistently right in advance.

George Brower Bethlehem, PA USA

Great editorial on 'what's the matter with America', and I agree.

Have you seen this study from the University of Maryland ? See below. Unfortunately, we are only strong as a nation as our weakest parts. I don't know why these people have their priorities mixed up. But please don't forget about the other 49% that did NOT vote for Bush!

Bill, A reader from Florida, USA