Bush, Mixed Messages, and Hofstede's Dimensions

I guess as far as certainty\uncertainty, the more chaotic the world becomes, and uncertain for people everywhere, perhaps things become simpler for a leader, especially if you believe in the legitimacy of war trumps the possiblity of negotiation. After all, it's much easier to kill people than it is to engage with them.

I've probably misunderstood everything your post was about, but thanks for it anyway.

It sometimes looks as if Republican strategists have looked at Hofstede's Dimensions and used them to level charges against Kerry.

Power Distance: Kerry is an egalitarian. He will tax everybody to level out power distance.
Individualism: Kerry consults with foreign powers. America must submit to a 'world test'. Kerry is not an individualist, and America under him must lose its individualism.

Masculinity: Kerry is a 'girly man'.

Uncertainty: Flip flopper.

Now, if this election has two condidates on opposite sides of every axis of Hofstede's dimensions, does this mean that the US is currently choosing which of two completely different nations to become?

Hofstede's dimensions can be applied on a national level or an individual level, but I think he implies that there are national 'characters'. This may be slightly less true today than it was in the 60s ('We are the last truly British people you will ever know,' globalism, etc), but I think it's not a distortion. IBM noticed that their Italian staff liked to take a siesta in the afternoon and work a bit later in the evening, their US staff were much less unionised, etc etc. These differences persist, and are often national. However, the US seems to be at a junction. It seems to be two different nations (the Red America, Blue America theme) with remarkably different attitudes, trying to decide which to be.

You could see a parallel with Canada, which has very different french-speakers and english-speakers. In the US, it's 'certainty seekers' v. 'uncertainty tolerants'.

If you look down the column for Uncertainty Avoidance, you'll see that Hong Kong gets 29 and Japan 92. They're at opposite ends of the spectrum with their attitudes to uncertainty, HK pretty tolerant, Japan pretty intolerant. Now, it happens that I've been in Japan and Hong Kong within the last two months. I vastly prefer Japan. It's true HK is chaotic and rude. But it's like New York in the sense that it's rude in a well-meaning way, whereas Japan is polite in a slightly sinister way. (The old joke about New Yorkers saying 'Fuck off' and meaning 'Have a nice day', whereas Californians say 'Have a nice day' and mean 'Fuck off' applies to Hong Kong and Japan too.)

The reason I like Japan better is that when you know the rules, you minimise conflict. Where it's orderly, you can play and flirt and have agreeable public life. You can zone uncertainty: the streets are tidy, but the art galleries and concert halls can be full of a safe, playful sort of dissonance and chaos.

So I wonder if Bush is trying to 'zone uncertainty'? Does he want chaos in the rest of the world and order in 'the homeland'?

If we apply this to the US elections, however, we see the reverse of this - apparently - being the case, where Kerry, supposedly more collectivist in wanting to be more consultative with the international community, is also someone who represents a lower power distance.

Bush, supposedly representing America's individualism, also represents a high power distance.

Does this mean:

a) Hofstede was inaccurate.

b) I've got my facts wrong.

or

c) Bush doesn't really represent individualism at all.

Quentin.

I'd hazard this as an explanation. Socialism has always been anti-individualist and egalitarian in theory. In practise, though, left wing parties have tended to throw up charismatic demagogues, from Stalin to Tony Blair, and increased rather than diminished power distance ('the dictatorship of the proletariat', the nomenklatura, etc). Conservatism claims to be individualist and favours policies which make the rich richer and the poor poorer. However, the libertarian and authoritarian impulses are as contradictory within the right as they are within the left: it's fine to be an 'individualist' if you're an entrepreneur, but John Ashcroft's thought police will come knocking at your door if you stick a poster of Osama Bin Laden on your wall. So, yes, c). Bush represents an extremely narrow definition of individualism. He's also got very narrow definitions of 'freedom' and 'democracy' to go with it. They mostly all come down to 'Thinking like I do', and money. Come to think of it, those two are pretty much the same thing.

'Thinking like I do', and money. Come to think of it, those two are pretty much the same thing.

Maybe Bush doesn't think he needs certainty, he has something better: Christian faith and 21st century post-9/11 Manifest Destiny. Whereas Kerry has logic and reasoning which to the Republican party is about as useless as a child protesting something unfair to their parents; asking "Why" and getting "Because I said so" in response.

Of course, I hope that this tactic will backfire for Bush; if one remembers anything about strict parents and high school, it is that often one loses respect for those who hold fast to a view that is clearly, clearly wrong. This goes back to the question of the role of Uniformity Avoidance in the minds of American voters, though - some respect those who will show dignity in admitting their mistakes, whereas others believe in reshaping past assertions to give the impression of consistency. With videotape, this seems more complicated, as Cheney must have found last week when NBC dug up footage of him linking Iraq to 9/11, when he denied having made such a connection during the debate. But, what matters more - later showing the inconsitency, or merely giving the strong impression of consistency at the time?

Bush wants us to believe he's certain by continuously insisting that HE believes he's certain, while Kerry wants us to believe he's certain because we know where he stands and because we can make that assertion ourselves.

Main Entry: stead·fast
Pronunciation: 'sted-"fast also -f&st
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English stedefast, from Old English stedefæst, from stede + fæst fixed, fast
1 a : firmly fixed in place : IMMOVABLE b : not subject to change
2 : firm in belief, determination, or adherence : LOYAL
synonym see FAITHFUL
- stead·fast·ly adverb
- stead·fast·ness /-"fas(t)-n&s, -f&s(t)-/ noun

Oh have I grown so sick of the overuse of this term.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." -Ralph Waldo Emerson, writer and philosopher (1803-1882)