Andy Rowell, 9 November 2004
"Four more years," is the sound that should send a chill down the spine of millions across the Middle East and the rest of the world. The most important election of modern times was won by the most hated American President of recent times, George W. Bush.
Worse still the Republicans gained control of all the important tiers of government: tightening their hold on the Senate, keeping control of the House of Representatives and strengthening their grip on the Supreme court. After the fiasco of Florida in 2000, Bush now has a clear mandate from the America people to govern. So the President that preaches fear, polarisation and patriotism will be more aggressive and more extreme. Watch out Falluja. Watch out Iran. Watch out world.
So how did Bush win? By peddling fear. This was the first US election held after September 11 2001. The first under the shadow of Bush’s "War on Terror". A record number of voters turned out because they were afraid. The stakes were so high that this was the first ever US Presidential election to spend $2 billion on the campaign. That is more than the GDP of many countries.
The election was so important to the rest of the world that an estimated 8,000 foreign journalists followed the Presidential candidates. They watched Bush and Kerry criss-crossing America speaking at hundreds of rallies, attacking each other with an astonishing 600,000 television adverts where propaganda and lies became the norm. The prize was the White House and four years as the most powerful person on the planet.
What does the result mean? The American political left argued that the choice between Bush and Kerry was like a non-smoker being forced to sit down and smoke either a Marlboro or a Lucky Strike. Both would leave you feeling queasy. A campaign organiser for Ralph Nader, the third Presidential candidate argued: "They think anything’s better than Bush and that things are so bad they have to vote for Kerry. I think if we only have Bush and Kerry to choose from, things are even worse than they think".
A few in the American press even labelled Kerry – John W. Kerry - after George W. Bush, saying that Kerry would be more like Bush than many people realise. Their personalities and morals may be very different, but their policies would be the same. Kerry’s stance towards Israel was likened to George Bush’s. Bush in turn has run his "war on terror" in the mould of Ariel Sharon. It is Sharon who has argued that the US should move from Iraq, to Iran and Syria.
But there were differences that split America down the middle creating a deeply polarised country: the rich versus the poor; black versus white; religious right versus secular liberals. Those who wanted to ban abortion to those who believe in the woman’s right to choose. Democrats also argued that Bush had presided over nearly a million job losses, the Republicans who argued the economy was healthy. A nation totally divided, united only by its love of the Stars and Stripes.
But it was Bush’s "War on Terror" and war in Iraq that really shaped the election. A central theme of Bush’s campaign was fear. Bush is a populist evangelical politician whose slogan was "A safer America". You can only want safety if you feel afraid.
The strategy is nothing new. Bush is a puppet being pulled by the neo-conservative elite. Names that few had heard of four years ago: Paul Wolfowitz; Dick Cheney; Richard Perle and
Dona
ld Rumsfeldt have shaped Bush’s thinking and direction. Richard Perle is a leading neo-conservative who has called himself a "revolutionary." Known in Washington as the "Prince of Darkness," Perle was a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He, like many neo-Conservatives, believes that America is winning the "War on Terror".
The neo-conservatives want people to be afraid. They need an "evil" for people be afraid of. An evil to conquer. In the seventies and eighties it was Russia. In the nineties it was Bill Clinton. Since 9/11 it was Saddam Hussain and Bin Laden. Now any country that stands against America could be "evil". Bush said repeatedly on the campaign trail: "You are either with us or against us".
Also behind Bush are his corporate backers. Professor James Galbraith from the University of Texas has called the Bush administration a "junta of major corporate interests", that includes oil; energy, defence; pharmaceutical; the media; mining; and financial. The neo-cons and corporate interests merge with companies such as Halliburton and Bechtel that have prospered so well in Iraq.
Whilst it is now corporate bonanza time with Bush’s second term, the "War on Terror" around the world continues to be a failure. Even Bush’s ex-Terrorism co-ordinator admits the war is being "lost". It has failed to cure the causes of terrorism and resentment. If a fraction of the $225 billion spent on the War had been on poverty alleviation, the benefits would be far reaching. According to the UN, thirty four million people in the Arab States are undernourished; fifty one million do not have access to adequate sanitation and one million children a year die prematurely. That message was not understood by those who voted for Bush.
Instead the War on Terror has made the world a more dangerous place. So too has the war on Iraq. Words will never be able to describe the horrors of war. But 100,000 are now reported dead in Iraq, hundreds of thousands injured or homeless. Bush and the Republicans do not understand that war only breeds more war. The military planners failed to grasp the simple concept that you cannot bomb Iraqi people at the same time as telling them that they are friends. That you cannot kill children in the name of peace. You cannot tell lies, in the name of truth. You cannot liberate oppression by more oppression. The images of Abu Ghraib will haunt for years to come, and will hurt even more because the Commander in Chief has just been re-elected.
Where Bush once promised victory, Iraq has become a quagmire without end. Pulitzer winning journalist Maureen Dowd from the New York Times, argues that Bush never had any exit strategy for Iraq. In "Bushworld", there are never dead bodies of American servicemen, only heroes. There are dead bodies of innocent Iraqis, but they are forgotten and never counted.
It is this Bushworld that has prevailed in America. Kerry and the Democrats failed to offer and alternative to Bushworld. Kerry missed several strategic events to attack Bush, not only for the fundamental failures in Iraqi but also his own soldiers. He failed to grill Bush over the Abu Ghraib. Another Pulitzer winning journalist, Seymour Hersh, says "Abu Ghraib is a symptom, a terrible symptom of a system that went bad from the beginning ….I think it would take enormous amount of guts and integrity for Kerry to have pushed the story. But he didn't.".
Kerry failed to capitalise on the fact that for the first time since Vietnam American troups were refusing to fight out of fears for there own safety. He failed to the hold Bush to account over the misinformation about Weapons of Mass Deception and the lies about going to war.
So we are left with Bush and an increasingly polarised world. We are left with the likelihood of more wars and more hatred. It is reckoned that Bush will seek a further $70 billion if re-elected for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. "If Bush wins re-election, he will bomb and bomb and bomb" argues Seymour Hersh. We cannot let that happen. We cannot let the politics of fear and loathing prevail.
Also available in Arabic
|
Events Calendar
