Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Okay, but what is it in the culture that has changed? I can more or less make sense of the idea that the (so called) Moral Majority in the US became the new populism of discontent, and the thieves and crooks in the neo-con camp decided to exploit this by manufacturing an apparent (and fictitious) alliance of interests.

But what is it people in Kansas were actually unhappy about? Was it really just a change towards more diverse and open values?

There's a diary on Kos (by one of our regulars?) which wonders whether or not Bush is mentally ill. There's a comment hanging off it which asks what's maybe a more interesting question, which is whether the US as a country is mentally ill. On the basis that without a certain distance from reality, it should have been impossible for Bush to get anywhere close to the White House.

But it's not just Bush and the US that's had problem. Historically, crazy or damaged people have often become leaders.

How do democratic processes allow this? It makes sense after a violent take-over. But what is it that stopped a significant proportion of the population (e.g.) in the US from looking at Bush's record and thinking 'This guy is nuts - no way'?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Mar 2nd, 2006 at 05:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series