The bursting of the Bush bubble

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Claudio Gutierrez <gutierrezclaudio () terra cl>
Date: October 25, 2004 8:27:49 AM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
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 interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/