> As to why the US electorate would favour such a dim-witted
> nutcase, when other western democracies generally elect more
> mainstream politicians, I think its probably complicated. It
> seems to me that one factor is probably the simple fact that
> the US *is* the dominant imperial power, thus pretty much
> without any immediate concern about how other political
> powers might react to political choices that Americans make.
>
> Thus, the US can flout international laws, treaties and
> opinion without fears. The people of less powerful
> democracies know damn well that they can't get away with
> being a rampaging international outlaw.
> So they are a bit more circumspect about who they elect.
> Generally speaking anyhow. Not to mention that the people of
> more vulnerable democracies know that they can't really
> afford to elect obvious bird-brains, like George Bush.
>
> Americans have reason to think they can get away with
> electoral masturbation. They don't think they have to care
> about what the world thinks of their decision.
I do not think that international relations are on the minds of too many US voters. The truth is, the majority of the US public does not really give a shit - they view foreigners as amusing curiosities - some of them more amusing than others, but in general something that is somewhere "out there" but does not really relate to the US. In short, it is not Amerika ueber alles, the US versus the rest of the world, but simply America the beautiful, whereas others do not really enter that equation, either as friends or as foes. My experience in this country is that very few people actually show hostility toward foreigners (although that may vary regionally, e.g. there is a lot of resentment against Hispanics in CA), and in fact most of them are actually friendly in the "amusing curiosity" kind of way.
The fact that trolls like Bush are virtually guaranteed to win elections in this country has less to do with the perceived position of the US in the world or even perceived economic interests of the voters, but with the cultural stereotypes of "red bloodedness" and superman machismo. Arrogant macho assholes are virtually guaranteed to gain popularity, whether they are local high school football players, college fraternity boys, Donald Trump, the "governantor" of California, or the president of the United States. Bush won because he projected himself as a red-blooded, macho, hunting all-American man whereas his both opponents appeared like fru-fru wimps. Clinton won because he appeared to be more red-blooded than the patrician Bush Sr. He was later hated because he appeared too effeminate, not sufficiently macho, however the Monicagate actually earned him popularity.
I am not trying to claim that economic interests do not affect voter behavior, or that they are misperceived - all I am saying that the stereotypes and projections of red-blooded certitude, machismo, and power occupy a prominent place in the US collective consciousness and culture, dominate the US cultural productions, define social desirability, and of course, affect how people vote. That is to say, people voted for Bush because he appeared like a Superman who punishes bad characters, not because they held resentment toward the rest of the world. In a way, it is even more infantile than "false consciousness" mentioned by Doug - it is living in the fantasy world of cartoon characters instead of facing reality.
Wojtek