NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do some people constantly refer to everything that they perceive to be bad/questionable the act of a single man ?

In my international trade class we review the weekly top news stories and before every thing that’s said about what is happening, people say “Bush is”. For example “bush is drilling for oil in Alaska”, or “Bush destroyed the town of Falluja”, or “Bush brought democracy to the middle east though a horible war”.

People attribute the actions of a nation to a single man. Its like Hitler and the holocaust; there were 500,000 Germans that had a direct hand in the extermination of the Jews, and the approval of the majority of the German nation.

Is labeling something “Bush” a way for people to imply that what they are going to say has a negative connotation? Because most of the things he does are very popular in his party and at any given time around 40% of the population with another 40% opposed and 20% who don’t care.

Is it a way to distance the actions of America from the things people don’t want take responsibility for by saying “Bush did it, not me” ?

Why do some people constantly refer to everything that they perceive to be bad/questionable the act of a single man ?

In my international trade class we review the weekly top news stories and before every thing that’s said about what is happening, people say “Bush is”. For example “bush is drilling for oil in Alaska”, or “Bush destroyed the town of Falluja”, or “Bush brought democracy to the middle east though a horible war”.

People attribute the actions of a nation to a single man. Its like Hitler and the holocaust; there were 500,000 Germans that had a direct hand in the extermination of the Jews, and the approval of the majority of the German nation.

Is labeling something “Bush” a way for people to imply that what they are going to say has a negative connotation? Because most of the things he does are very popular in his party and at any given time around 40% of the population with another 40% opposed and 20% who don’t care.

Is it a way to distance the actions of America from the things people don’t want take responsibility for by saying “Bush did it, not me” ?

Well, for the war at least, because Bush declared war illegally when he has no power to do so under our constitution. Congress has to declare war, so technically we wern't at war when he assumed powers of war (or whatever, this confuses the hell outta me)

So says my history class.

Often times, most people that say such things realize that it is the fault of the entire administration. However, saying Bush specifically puts a face to the things they're talking about, and gives them someone to attack.

Meh. It's a way for us liberals to describe government policies while saying "Don't blame me, I voted for the opposition" at the same time.

Well, for the war at least, because Bush declared war illegally when he has no power to do so under our constitution. Congress has to declare war, so technically we wern't at war when he assumed powers of war (or whatever, this confuses the hell outta me)

So says my history class.

While they didn't give a declaration of war per se, Congress did authorize the use of force in Iraq in a resolution passed on October 16, 2002.

While they didn't give a declaration of war per se, Congress did authorize the use of force in Iraq in a resolution passed on October 16, 2002.

Yes, its called an executive decision where the congress gives sole athority to the president to use military force or wage war.

But lets not forget that the President is also the commander in cheif of the united states military, so he is legally allowed to do anything until they pass a law that says he's not; but then they'd have to get him to sign that law lol.

The illagal part comes into international law, but international law is just a way for the united states to justify prosecuting forign people the don't like.

As a matter of fact wasn't WW2 the last war where there was a formal declaration ? hasn't each war since all been an executive decision ?

People attribute the actions of a nation to a single man. Its like Hitler and the holocaust; there were 500,000 Germans that had a direct hand in the extermination of the Jews, and the approval of the majority of the German nation.

There was a sociologist who thought that same way. He thought that Germans must simply have something inherentlyl evil about them and started a study to prove that people just won't do something horrible no matter who tells them to do it. Of course, he found out that every single subject that came in was willing to cause extreme pain to a subject, just because the person telling them to do it was wearing a lab coat and seemed to be a person of authority. It's unfortunate, but most people are followers.

Why do some people constantly refer to everything that they perceive to be bad/questionable the act of a single man ?

In my international trade class we review the weekly top news stories and before every thing that’s said about what is happening, people say “Bush is”. For example “bush is drilling for oil in Alaska”, or “Bush destroyed the town of Falluja”, or “Bush brought democracy to the middle east though a horible war”.

People attribute the actions of a nation to a single man. Its like Hitler and the holocaust; there were 500,000 Germans that had a direct hand in the extermination of the Jews, and the approval of the majority of the German nation.

Is labeling something “Bush” a way for people to imply that what they are going to say has a negative connotation? Because most of the things he does are very popular in his party and at any given time around 40% of the population with another 40% opposed and 20% who don’t care.

Is it a way to distance the actions of America from the things people don’t want take responsibility for by saying “Bush did it, not me” ?

I think you know the answer to this already. Blaming all the world's evil on a few people, not only simplifies matters immensly, allowing us to ignore the root causes of these massive conflicts, but also gives the impression that if only these few evil people could be removed from power, everything would be alright. Whereas in real life there are probably thousands who would take their place and behave in exactly the same way.

This work both ways...

Reagan ended cold war!
Bush Brings democracy to Middle-East!
and so on

Generally people want to put faces on incidents that would happen anyway, so to speak.