In summary, in various ways, throughout the recent decades America has constantly failed to see the facts and has chosen image over substance.
When Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election for president, he had won only by less than the margin of votes handed out to independent presidential candidate, John Anderson, who had been a Republican.
Yet, upon entering the White House, Reagan and his supporters pretended that they had won a landslide of the popular vote and consistently marched a new revised American self-image forward in subsequent years. This quickly led to the first big post-Vietnam DOD spending spree without new taxes. This ballooning of the USA federal deficit would eventually help lead to a Wall Street collapse in the late 1980s--and the nation was in full recession again by the early 1990s.
NOTE: Back in 1986 to 1992, unlike politicians today, most people were not afraid to call a recession "a recession". So, at least, some part of substance (naming recession as a recession) over image could still triumph back in the Reagan-Bush era-an era usually marked by rhetoric over substance at times.
Similarly, both George H.W. Bush and William Clinton, as U.S. presidents, claimed that NAFTA was an unequivocal success and denied the fact that parts of U.S. and Mexican economies would be hollowed out by NAFTA rules.
Finally, in March 2001, despite experiencing the closest presidential election in over 100 years, George W. Bush and Richard Cheney would claim a complete victory for the Republican party and shoved a Reagan-style you-are-either-with-us-or-against us series of bills through Congress. These bills, which were signed into law, in 2001 and 2002 continued the process of tax-breaks for the wealthiest while failing to properly finance America's largest DOD spending boom expansion in decades.
How did Bush and Cheney in 2001 "declare a victory and move on" like they had won a humongous mandate in 2000? They were able to do this because of America's penchant for image over substance. Americans love to embrace the idea of declaring a victory and moving on.
Psychologically, it is reassuring to believe that one is supported by a cast of 1000s or millions, when in fact one has a bare majority in the USA.
The same approach has been applied abroad in this decade to devastating washback on American image abroad.
When Bush declared victory in Iraq on May 1, 2003 on board an aircraft carrier in San Diego harbor, he was playing again to that reassuring imagery-the sign or claim of victory gives the one who claims victory the opportunity to move on.
IRAQ: IS THE U.S. GOING TO DECLARE VICTORY AND MOVE ON?
This August there was an agreement signed by the U.S. and Iraqi leaders indicating that America will begin slowly bailing out Iraq during the next 5 years. However, this document doesn't guarantee that a full-bail out from Iraq will be complete by 2013.
As a matter of fact, reductions of troop levels in Iraq should stay fairly stable until next spring or summer 2009.
Nonetheless, some political propagandists in America are already trying to paint this adventure in Iraq to be a victory-and an opportunity to move troops onward (or bring some home). They are attempting to claim victory in the run up to this presidential election. They may pull this off if most Americans are only focused on their jobs, lack of jobs, lack of housing, lack of health care, etc. this November 2008.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
