In the wake of corporate scandals and economic crises, George W. Bush has managed to retain a near 70% approval rating in the polls. Although at least one poll indicates that only 47% would elect Bush to a second term (a 1% drop in what he actually achieved in the fraudulent election of 2000), Bush’s overall approval seems relatively unfazed by the fallout from the financial debacle. This recalls how the Reagan Presidency weathered the savings and loan scandals of the 1980’s, which, in turn, reinforced the image of Reagan as the “Teflon” President.

Interestingly, the family of Reagan’s Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush, was deeply implicated in the savings and loan machinations. Moreover, George W’s history with Harken Oil and the Texas Rangers has raised questions about his own financial dealings. Yet, in spite of this, the resident in the White House seems protected from the wrath of an aroused citizenry by Teflon armor.

In fact, when one begins to evaluate the actual performance and policies of the Bush Administration, one is overwhelmed by its incompetence, arrogance, and venality. Among the long list of Bush failures and travesties is the reversal from a massive surplus to massive deficits in the federal budget, the inability or unwillingness to prevent the attacks on 9/11, the increasing deterioration in environmental standards and civil liberties, the quagmire in Afghanistan, the isolation of the United States within the international community, and so on. Without the illusion of being a “leader” in the so-called war against terrorism, one is hard pressed to explain how Bush’s ratings remain so high.

On the other hand, when one considers the nature of polling and what passes for political culture in the United States, Bush’s approval rating becomes much more transparent. Polls, in particular, are notorious for their flawed approach to determining public opinion. Among these flaws is the lack of context and choice. So, for example, when asked simply, “Do you approve of the job the President is doing?”, most respondents have little option beyond a yes or no answer. Polls reinforce a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude that obfuscates the differences and concerns of an informed citizenry. Of course, there are citizens whose myopia seems to match that of the pollsters. What, for example, is one to make of a respondent to a recent New York Times poll who said he liked George W’s handling of the economy? Either this guy is completely delusional or a former investor in some corporation, say Harken Oil, who had inside information like Dubya and cashed in before the stocks took a dive.

The delusions suffered by many citizens in contemporary America is greatly aided by media manipulation. According to media critic, Mark Crispin Miller, our televisual culture has created a political environment where “likeability” is often the main criteria for determining how one votes. Instead of critically examining the positions of politicians, tv viewers in particular seem to respond to whether a candidate seems like a “good guy.” So, George W’s “I’m just a regular guy” resonates with a large segment of the population. Never mind the fact that he’s a smirking spoiled rich kid whose profound ignorance in so many matters is glossed-over by the fuzziness of televisual culture and the equally rich and spoiled pundits and television personalities.

The sort of anti-intellectualism that underscores some of Bush’s continuing appeal has a long history in US public affairs. However, the well-acknowledged “dumbing down” of the general culture may be another contributing factor in Bush’s teflon armor. Beyond the brain-eating tendencies of televisual culture, the spectacle society turns much of what we consume into a bland pre-digested marketable commodity. And Dubya certainly is a master of masking and marketing, except when his well-known gaffes (such as his astonishing remark to the President of Brazil: “You mean you have blacks here too!”) make him out to be a provincial idiot. But, there is also a streak of provincial idiocy in much of mainstream culture in the US.

On top of that provincial idiocy is the residual impact of Christian fundamentalism. Hence, a significant percentage of the population could get exercised by President Clinton’s private sexual peccadillo in the White House while excusing every real political sin of Resident Bush. That such a fuss could be made over a truly legitimate constitutional decision about removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance is indicative of the degree to which the US polity is still under God’s thumb. Or, rather, the ham-fisted approach of Christian fundamentalism - a punitive and hypocritical puritanism that has nothing in common with the truly loving and redemptive vision of religion represented by, among others, Dr. Martin Luther King.

So, Bush’s teflon armor is a product of something more than his own personality and the complicit role of pollsters and media manipulators. In order to pierce that armor it will be necessary to exercise one’s critical faculties and engage in informed and public debate and demonstrations. Before George W. attempts to put on more armor in a misguided war-making campaign against Iraq, the American public needs to assert its independent and liberatory mind, body, and soul.

Fran Shor teaches at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is an anti-war activist and member of the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights. E-mail: f.shor@wayne.edu

###