Posthuman Blues

Poll: Terror attack to boost Bush

"A new nationwide poll conducted by the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute suggests more people think it would be Bush, not U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., whose election chances would get a boost from a terrorist act on U.S. soil just prior to the November 2004 presidential election."

Hardly a surprise. I think another 9-11 before the next make-believe election is entirely possible, especially given the W. administration's pre-9-11-01 lust for a "new Pearl Harbor" to polarize the American people against fictional "enemies of freedom." A new attack on American soil might be "tolerated" if it ensures an actual electoral victory for Bush, thereby helping (but by no means succeeding) to silence the leftist "conspiracy nuts" with the audacity to point out that Bush is merely an appointed President -- not an elected one.

If Bush could actually win an election without inside help from friends and family (even if it meant more fear and trembling in the wake of a terrorist attack, real or perceived) then his leadership might gain a sickening pretense of authenticity.

A problem arises, though, if too many people are thinking along the same lines as I am. And I think a lot of them are. They know that a terror attack would ultimately function in Bush's favor. They'd be immediately suspicious if another cinematic strike should occur . . . and this might undermine the effort to pass Bush over as a competent and abiding anti-terror "President" for another four years.

Of course, the administration could skip all of the above and just dismantle what's left of the Constitution under some more creative pretext; I'm sure Ashcroft would be happy to play along. But I can't help but think that Bush still depends on his public perception, at least in certain critical arenas.