[IP] The bursting of the Bush bubble
Begin forwarded message:
From: Claudio Gutierrez <gutierrezclaudio@xxxxxxxx>
Date: October 25, 2004 8:27:49 AM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: The bursting of the Bush bubble
Financial Times' editorial
http://tinyurl.com/67wod
The bursting of the Bush bubble
The US presidential election is the most closely watched since at least
1980. Now as then, the choice is between two candidates with sharply
different governing philosophies and views on the exercise of American
power in the world. The outcome will determine whether the radical,
faith-based politics of President George W. Bush triumphs, or whether
Americans opt for the shift in course represented by Senator John
Kerry.
Mr Bush entered the White House in January 2001, having won a narrow
election victory, courtesy of the US Supreme Court. He pledged to be a
conciliator. He talked about uniting Democrats and Republicans at home.
He promised to pursue a humble foreign policy abroad. His record shows
that he has done neither. He has been a polariser, exploiting the War
on Terror to cow domestic opposition and divide the world into Them and
Us.
Mr Bush can argue that events dictated his actions. After the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001, the world changed, at least in the eyes
of suddenly vulnerable Americans. The need for strong presidential
leadership was imperative. Mr Bush had already inherited a sharp
economic slowdown and a stock-market slump. The 9/11 attacks shattered
business and confidence. Thanks to generous tax cuts and the Fed's
cheap money, a relatively robust recovery is still under way.
This short-term economic fix could turn, however, into long-term
disaster. Mr Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill in Congress.
His pledge to make the tax cuts permanent is reckless. Only on trade
has the administration behaved with restraint. Unlike the 1980s, when
Republican administrations played to anti-Japanese sentiment, the White
House has avoided stoking popular fears about China's economic power.
But it is on foreign policy that Mr Bush will ultimately be judged.
From his first day in office, Mr Bush has pursued a political agenda
guided by ideology. Acting on principle is not necessarily a weakness,
as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan demonstrated during the cold
war. Mr Bush's flaw is his stubborn reluctance to admit mistakes and to
adjust personnel and policy. Blind faith in military power as a tool
for change has too often influenced decision-making.
Over the past three years, the gap between ambition and reality has
created what could be termed a "Bush bubble". It began after September
11 when the president united a stricken nation behind the struggle
against radical Islamist terrorism. Yet success bred excess. Mr Bush
launched a pre-emptive war against Iraq on a false prospectus. Few
would dispute that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, but
the weapons of mass destruction cited as the casus belli appear a
figment of the imagination. Mr Bush's vision of spreading democracy in
the Middle East is a noble one, but the execution has been execrable.
The occupation of Iraq looks like a rallying-point for the Islamic
fundamentalists who are the real enemy.
The US needs allies in the struggle against terrorism but Mr Bush's
crusading moralism has alienated the rest of the world, and a large
constituency at home already fearful about the influence of the
religious right. The scandal of Abu Ghraib has stained America's
reputation for a generation. The administration's disdain for
international law has shaken faith in American values. Overall, the
US-led war on terror misreads the battle against al-Qaeda as a clash of
civilisations rather than a battle within the Muslim world.
Mr Kerry understands such nuances. He also understands that American
power depends on American credibility. The pre-emptive war against Iraq
will make it harder to rally international (and US) opinion in future
crises dealing with aspiring nuclear powers such as Iran and North
Korea.
Mr Kerry has, of course, been on the wrong side of history in the past.
He was in favour of a nuclear freeze during the cold war. He voted
against the first Gulf war. But after being tested in the crucible of
Vietnam, he has learnt that revisiting certitudes can be a virtue.
On domestic policy, the senator still has much to prove. He appears
more serious about deficit reduction but, like Mr Bush, is unwilling to
have a serious conversation about the long-term impact of Social
Security and Medicare costs. On trade, he risks being captured by
trades unions worried about the outsourcing of jobs. A President Kerry
would probably revert to the fiscal responsibility of the Clinton
years, particularly if forced to do so by a Republican majority in
Congress. Coupled with the need for international economic policy
co-operation, notably to manage a future decline of the dollar, this
could be a recipe for success.
There are those, particularly in Europe, who would like to turn back
the clock to before 9/11. They pine for the peace and prosperity of the
Clinton years. Mr Bush recognised the world had changed. But he has
taken the US in the wrong direction. As a candidate Mr Kerry often
fails to inspire. He owes his rise more to opposition to Mr Bush than
loyalty to his own cause. But on balance, he is the better, safer
choice.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/