Group Think is what happens when a particular idea or range of opinion is prevelant enough throughout the “group” that it becomes inherently difficult for the individual within that “group” to break from the prevailing sentiment.  It’s a lot like peer pressure in middle school.

Let me now break from the shackles of Group Think and say this:  I admire George W. Bush.  I haven’t agreed with everything he has done, but I have agreed with much of it.  Even when I have dissagreed with him, I have understood his position.  And, I believe that he is a good man who cares deeply for his country.  He has endured one of the most difficult set of circumstances of any US president in our history.  He has, in my opinion, been the recipient of probably the most brutal, unfair, and unreasonable public assaults on his character and his intelligence of any US president in history.

His greatest flaw as a president may be his greatest personal strength, and that is humility.  Because of his humility, he has not stood up for himself against a rip-tide of relentless partisan and media attacks.  As partisans and biased media organizations learned that he would not, to a large extent, counter their assaults, they became emboldened to push the envelope with their agendas.  As a result, President George W. Bush is, in my opinion, one of the most mis-understood US presidents in our history. 

This is a man who could have very legitimately lambasted the governor of Louisiana and the mayor of New Orleans for not doing their most important jobs, for it was their responsibility to manage a major emergency in the days just before, during, and immediately after Hurricane Katrina, not the federal government’s.  It was their responsibility.  The federal government can provide assistance to re-build and recover in the weeks and months following a disaster, but it is not positioned, or intended to be positioned, to manage an emergency as it is happening.  And, if you doubt this, just look at the night-and-day difference between how the emergency was handled in Mississippi verses the way it was handled in Louisiana.  The difference, obvious to anyone with an objective point of view, is in the way the local authorities managed the situation.  And, yet, the perception still remains that the blame lies with the federal government, in large part because President Bush is too good of a man to point the finger at someone else.

Because of Group Think, created by such examples as above, most Americans under the age of about 25 think that President Bush is a nasty, mean-spirited person, when in fact, people who have actually met him consistently describe him as a genuinly compassionate and caring man (even leftists who have met the president often acknowledge this).  I recently had a conversation with a guy who believed that President Bush had a lot in common with Hitler—the same old heresay and conspiracy story.  I told him that I believed President Bush to be an honest and decent man, even when I dissagree with him.  He was astonished that I could possibly believe that.  In a conversation with another guy I worked with, I told him that, although I may dissagree with President Bush at times, I didn’t think he was a stupid man.  He laughed at me.

There are numerous accounts of the president shedding tears with the families of fallen soldiers in private moments of solace.  This is a man who does not take lightly the decision to send our soldiers into battle.  This is a man who cares deeply for the people of this country and for the world.

And, what of the rest of the world?  Most of the world seems to dislike this man.  In my opinion this is just the global extension of the same Group Think phenomenon.  Millions of people around the world are deliberately misled by the people who control and disseminate information.  Because President Bush is a conservative who has taken some bold action in the world, his persona is presented by world-wide media outlets with an unflattering political slant.  And millions of people consume that “information” to form their opinions of the man.

And, yet, look what President Bush has done to help the people of Africa!  He has arguably saved more lives and helped more people in Africa than any other person in the history of this planet.  At no time in history, I believe, has the collective perception of one man been so completely off-target from the reality.

In that earlier post with the comment that I was uncomfortable about, I made the historical comparison between Lincoln in 1863, Truman in 1952 and Bush in 2008.  I surmised that it was possible that George W. Bush could be remembered by history a generation removed as a great president.  I strongly believe this because the judgement of history is often at odds with the judgement of the present, as evidenced by Harry Truman who was as unpopular in 1952 as President Bush is today.

So, let me now correct my Group Think qualifying statement from that post and say now:  I have, in fact, been thrilled with my president:  President George W. Bush.  A very good man, a very strong leader, and a very humble individual who led my country for eight years through some very difficult times.  And, I sincerely hope that I will be able to say the same for President Elect Barack Obama.

It is my opinion that this “war” is no longer a war.  It is in a period of post-war stabilization.  The long-term total operation in Iraq, still ongoing, is a part of the War on Terror.  I certainly understand that.  But, the Iraq War, that large element of the broader War on Terror, and the first stage in the long-term Iraq operation, is over, and we are well into stabilization.

In light of this very low US fatality number for October, 2008, I thought I would do some additional analysis through a great source, iCasualties.org.

Click on the link at the bottom of this post for some charts I created.  My conclusions:

Obviously the first one is that the US casualties have dropped substantially in the last year as well as that of the Iraqi Secutiry Forces and Iraqi Civilians.  That’s pretty well known.  But, what I find interesting is this:  The perception until a few months ago when The Surge began to work (and it has worked) was that the war was escalating, getting worse, spiraling down hill.  I always maintained that this perception created by the media was inaccurate.  I always believed that, while there were major setbacks, the situation was never completely out of control and never in a complete downward spiral.

First, the US chart indicates that, after the first full year of the war, US fatalities held at a similar annual rate between years 2 and 5.  This dispells the notion that the level of US casualties were escalating during this time, which was the perception created, I believe, by the media. 

Second, Iraqi Security Forces saw a gradual decline in annual fatalities since iCasualties.org began measuring this statistic in January, 2005.  Again, this goes against the common perception that Iraqi forces were seeing escalating fatalities from 2005 through 2007 as they were actually declining a little each year. 

Last, Iraqi civilian deaths spiked in 2006 and 2007 and have dropped way down in 2008 (projected), an indication that the quality and safety of every day life in Iraq has dramatically improved in the last year.  But, it is very unclear whether all of these civilian deaths were directly war-related or not.  For example, on November 1st, according to iCasualties.org, “police found the body of a man bearing stab wounds in central Hilla.” Is that war-related, or just a murder?  Who knows. 

Check out the link below for the cool charts.

iraq-war-trends

Perhaps a bigger question is this?  Are the polls accurate?  And, will there be a Bradley Effect?

The Bradley Effect is a phenomenon that has happened on occasion with a black vs. white candidate.  The polls show a certain level of support for the black candidate, but the election results turn out more favorably than expected for the white candidate.  Now, it is very important to point out that not all political races between black and white candidates have this effect.  And, there was something similar to a Bradley effect in 2004 when most polls indicated John Kerry had a slight lead going into the election, but he lost the popular and the electoral vote to George Bush.  So, the Bradley Effect may not really be based on race.  The racial element in this effect may be just a coincidence, and the real reason may have to do with the polling methods.

But, here is what I’m afraid of:  If John McCain manages to win this election, I guarantee that the race card is going to come out in a big way from the far left.  People are going to start saying that racism was the difference in the election.  I have already seen many people make the claim that, if one is white and chooses not to vote for Obama, then said person must be racist.  Which, of course, for most of us is not only rediculous, but insulting.

I think the number of white voters who would not consider voting for Obama for the sole reason that he is half black is certainly under 3% of the total white voting population, and probably under 1%.  And, yet, that element certainly is there, and it will certainly be a topic of discussion if McCain wins by a very small margin.

On the other hand, we are seeing over 90% of the black population supporting Obama.  Clearly a certain percentage of black Americans will be voting for Obama for no other reason than the fact that he is African American.  Logically, I belive that the percentage of black voters voting this way is likely to be somewhere along the lines of 10% to 20%. 

This is not a double-standard.  There are more compelling reasons for African Americans to vote this way than for White Americans.  Obama’s rise to this level is historic, and a long time coming.  The urge to vote this way for African Americans is probably significant.  And, while I think this type of vote is uninformed, I don’t think it is ill-intentioned or malicious.  But, it certainly exists.

But, if McCain wins, something tells me that the media, while they probably will play up the race-based vote on the white side, will probably not do their due dilligence and analyze the counter-acting race-based vote on the black side.  This could lead to an embarrasing public discource with, not surprisingly, the media stoking the flames with only part of the picture.

I decided to write on this topic after reading an article posted on MSN.com today about Southern Blacks and their take on the election.  In that article was this gem of a quote from a black man in the south. 

“Some people say to me ‘You have to vote for Obama. This is history. Don’t you want to be a part of history?’”

“But Dr. Martin Luther King taught us to judge a person on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin,” said Smart. “If we vote for him because he’s black, isn’t that going backward?”

The first part of the quote seems to provide some evidence of the idea that many African Americans will be voting for Obama on the basis of his race.  The second part of the quote shows the moral question that it presents and what should be the correct conclusion of all voters, black or white.

This is the standard historical summary of one of our greatest presidents.  But, in fact, this great leader was almost universally disliked by Americans both south and north of the Mason-Dixon around 1863.  Obviously he was enemy #1 in the South.  But, in the North, too, he was widely condemned.  Most northerners in 1863, while they may not have liked the practice of slavery, they were less concerned about the plight of blacks in America than they were about keeping the Union together.

At the start of the Civil War, the north believed it would be nothing more than a six-month ordeal (sound familiar?).  But, in 1863, the war was in its third year and hundreds of thousands of Americans were dying on the battlefield, in some cases by the tens of thousands in single battles.  The South wind was blowing hard against the Union and there was little sign of victory.  Lincoln was being pressured on all political sides to end the war, to give in, to find a political solution.

Lincoln stood firm against the gale and held steady.  In the early years of the war, his generals failed him, so he replaced them, one after the other.  Then came Grant and Sherman.  These men, by this time, understood that the American Civil War was not the minor six-month dance it was expected to be.  By this time, they knew that, to win this war, the South must be crushed and demoralized.  So, they began to fight for real.  And the tide turned.

Prior to the outbreak of the Civil War Lincoln was seen by many as a simpleton.  He wasn’t refined enough to be an American president.  His oratory skills were limited, as he spoke in simple, short sentences.  He didn’t talk much, didn’t seem to take charge.

Now, we look back at Lincoln as a hero.  We see him as an example of leadership.  We see him as a great man of wisdom, honesty, and internal strength.  We see him as one of our greatest presidents.  If we could go back and tell the average American in 1863 this, they would not believe it.  Not this backwoods simpleton Abe Lincoln!

Harry S. Truman.  A Democrat.  A good and honest man.  The buck stopped at his desk and no where else.  Here was a man who never aspired to be president and yet there he was.  And, most historians agree, he passed the test with flying colors.  Considered by most to be a good president.  Considered by many to be a great one.

Yet, in 1952 Harry S. Truman’s approval rating, by the same poll that measures GW Bush’s approval rating today, was a dismal 22%.  In fact that is the lowest presidential approval rating on record since this type of polling began in the 1930′s.

In 1952, the United States was stuck in a stalemate in Korea.  Tens of thousands of Americans were losing their lives over there, and for what?  Republicans and the American populace had turned against this war with no end.  He had other problems:  Truman fired Douglas MacArther, an unpopular move.  And, there was a scandal with the IRS.

Eisenhower took office in 1953 on an anti-war theme and the rest is history.  But, generations removed, something happened.  Somehow, history unfolded.  And, as we looked back with the unobstructed vision of objectivity, we analyzed Harry Truman’s performance fairly.  And, we found a great leader.  Flaws, yes.  But, a great leader nevertheless.  He did good things in office.  And, he made very difficult decisions with conviction–decisions that have often been vindicted by the unfolding events of history after his presidency.  His vision, which couldn’t be assessed in real-time, became clear in the years and decades later.

What I am suggesting here is not that George W. Bush will be remembered a generation from now as a great president despite his terrible approval ratings now.  No, what I am suggesting is that, depending on how events unfold over the coming years and decades, it is possible. 

I can almost hear the gasps and groans as I write this.  But, if we had the chance to ask the average American in 1952 whether or not they thought Truman would one day be considered a great president, we would have been greeted with similar gasps and groans.  No way.  But, it happened.  Same with Lincoln.

Consider this:  What if Iraq continues on its apparent path to democracy and prosperity?  What if that democracy and prosperity in Iraq does lead to a gradual ground-shift in Middle Eastern culture and politics, away from theocratic and dictatorial rule and gradually towards Democracy?  What happens when people begin to give credit to GW Bush for the work he has done to save lives in Africa?  What happens when the economy recovers from the current troubles, as it always does in a cyclical capitalist system?  What happens, when we are a generation removed from the divisive politics of today and can look back at George W. Bush with an objective point of view?

George W. Bush may not be remembered in 50 years as a great president.  But, I believe history will be kinder to him than most of us think at the present time.  And, I don’t write this out of some kind of allegience or support for Bush.  I voted for Gore in 2000 and I haven’t been thrilled with GW.  However, I do believe he is a decent man who has tried to make the right decisions for his country, wrong or right.  We’ll have to wait and see how the events unfold to really know the wisdom of his decisions.

We are linking the themes of independent politics and geography, so what shall we do first?  I know!  Alaska.  Yes, Alaska has been in the news quite a lot lately, obviously, because of the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election.  And, she happens to be from a unique place on the globe, a place in the far northwest of the North American continent known as the great state of Alaska!

Palin has emerged as a polarizing figure, but the reason why this is the case is of great interest to me.  There seems to be phenomenon occuring here:  She is only the second woman to be nominated as a vice presidential running mate.  But, she is very conservative politically, especially socially.  This seems to present a bit of a conundrum for many people, particularly for who I call ”social elitists.”

I grew up with the perception that the liberal mind is the open mind (and in many cases it is).  But, as I have aged, I have learned that the two are not necessarily joined at the hip.  Unfortunately, I find that the altruistic ideals of liberalism are often subjugated by a new liberal elitist ignorance.  And, this is more prominently on display now with the Palin phenomenon than at any other time I can recall.

Contrast the perception of the liberal mindset as the inclusive and compassionate with the vindictiveness of the liberal attack on Palin complete with a level of social ignorance normally not associated with the “enlightened” liberal mind.  To put it another way:  Palin may be a woman, but she does not represent what “liberals” think a woman should represent.  This would be fine if the critical barrage stayed in bounds and on topic, but unfortunately it has not.

I don’t write this to rail against liberalism.  I believe that the true ideal of liberalism is generally a positive thing.  The problem is that examples of true liberalism are becomming rare, and in its place, we are finding more and more examples of a new liberal ignorance guised under a veil of social elitism.