Four more years

This morning almost 300 million Americans will wake up as I did, to learn that George W. Bush has been re-elected as the President of the United States of America. If cast votes are representative of the overall population then almost exactly 50% of Americans will be elated that their candidate won and that four more years of George Walker Bush will ensue. For the remaining 50% of Americans "morning in America", a phrase coined by Ronald Reagan in the Eighties, never looked so bad.

As a British citizen living in California for ten years I have enjoyed a fascinating perspective of the American political system, and indeed America itself. But until four years ago I didn't have much interest at all in what was going on in American politics, it really didn't seem to matter much at all - life was simply business as usual. Coming to America at the start of the Clinton era I had been enjoying the benefits of life in a period of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity, while simultaneously watching the blooming of the Internet as a world communication system and a mechanism for deliverance of people power. In 1994 when I landed as a "non-resident alien" email and the web browser were just interesting novelty technologies, ten years later as a "resident alien" (green card holder) they are a way of life.

But something else important happened in the intervening years. The slow and steady creep of corporate influence into American politics reached a point where it could dominate how politicians and elections are funded, and how the media sells the candidates to the American people. Simultaneously the Internet has achieved a critical mass of users where it has also become a powerful influence in American politics. More and more the individual people of America are using it to communicate among themselves without a multi-billion dollar media company involved in the process, and more and more they are discovering something very interesting: America really is full of people with an incredible diversity of opinions, beliefs and ideologies, and yet, when it comes to the polling booth, is an amazingly evenly divided country. Tools like the Internet have only served to bring that big melting pot of American culture, ethnicities and religion to a fiercer boiling point than ever. Take all that energy and then force it one way or the other and something or someone is bound to get hurt.

This election the Internet was primarily utilized to polarize Americans as either with Bush or against him. Within the narrow confines of America's two-party winner-takes-all electoral system voters everywhere realized that in spite of all the complexities of running a country, they would ultimately be asked to choose just one of two candidates with apparently diametrically opposed opinions on almost every important issue. As with many second term elections this one rapidly became a vote for or against Bush and Kerry became not the Democratic candidate but the anti-Bush candidate. Those that didn't like Bush, regardless of their political persuasion held their noses and voted for Kerry. Voting for anyone else like Ralph Nader was a waste of time and effectively a vote for Bush, as was not voting at all - a form or silent consent for the status quo. Thus many Americans have taken a heightened interest in this years election even dubbing it "the most important in their life". And if the election was the most important then surely the so is the outcome.

Back in 2000 few Americans, even Republican politicians, could have predicted how the years 2001 through 2004 would have turned out under President Bush. Except that is a select cabal of Neo Conservatives thinkers in Washington who had Bush's ear, and through complex web of personal connections and a long history of Bush involvement in the Middle East and the oil industry, had his heart and mind too. That group self described as "The Project for the New American Century" and now dubbed "Neo Conservatives" advocated a stronger, more interventionist American foreign policy. America, they said could only stay number one in the world if it actively and preemptively asserted its right to be so. By doing so, they claimed, world peace and stability would be ensured. All the world needs is a strong leader that shows everyone right from wrong and has a big enough stick to enforce right over wrong. This is exactly how Bush sold himself in the election debates - over and over we heard how he is the strong, decisive leader and Kerry was the flip-flopper who'd go running to the UN at every opportunity. Kerry only once countered this with a quip "You can be certain AND be wrong" but never prevailed in eliminating the flip-flopping label even though Bush was easily as guilty of policy changes and contradictory stands during his Presidential term.

Like Shakespeare's Macbeth, the Neo-Cons believed they had seen a vision of the future with a strong America and that they must pro-actively proceed with policies to ensure it happens. That for the most part, with Bush in control, is the Republican view of the world and what Republican voters are buying into, even if subconsciously. It is after all most closely aligned with "the American way"- your future is in your own hands and you have the power to achieve anything you desire should you make the effort. In this years election Bush continued to sell the message that America's role is the de-facto world leader and that its security can only be ensured if it continues in that role - to be safe you must be strong, be certain and above all be a winner. That, it turns out, was a very popular message with America's voters this year.

Which brings us to the rest of the world...

While 300 million Americans are digesting the news over their morning coffee, bagel and cream cheese, for the remaining 95% of the world's population it may not be breakfast time but they will be learning exactly the same news. If recent international polls are to be believed, the opinion of the vast majority of the world will be that America has now morphed from a nation lead by an unpopular and dangerously unilateralist President, into a unpopular and dangerously unilateralist nation. With the re-election of Bush the ability of American people to dissociate themselves with the actions of their government will diminish, as will the willingness of other countries to make a distinction between America the nation state and America the people. The partisan politics that have slowly but surely split America itself, will continue to propagate beyond its borders worldwide and divisively lead to nations labeled as "with us or against us". Americans notoriously patriotic and there is no such thing as a "stiff upper lip" in America - an attack on their country in any way is like waving a red flag to a bull. So the increase in international rhetoric and actions against America will surely increase unrest at home as the pro-Bush supporters become more incensed and the anti-Bush supporters become more willing to dissociate themselves from the image of America that George Bush is projecting. This will only serve to inflame tensions at home as well as abroad.

One can only speculate over what impact this will have on global peace and the number of acts of terrorism against America and those countries that line up behind it. For those that oppose Bush it seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy - the more America deems it necessary to project its military power the world over to eliminate terrorism the more countries and people we will find to fight against us. "What became", they ask, "of that goofy compassionate conservative whose idea of interventionism would be spending the weekend clearing scrub on this ranch in Texas?".

Thus four more years of George W. Bush will certainly bring a shock to the many Americans who had believed the story sold to them over the past two years, hat there is a huge international coalition of support for their actions in Iraq. Indeed during the election debates Bush continued to repeat this claim even though Kerry was kind enough to interject that a few thousand troops from the UK, Spain and Poland do not represent any such a thing. More and more Americans will encounter incredulity as to its continuing actions around the world. More and more they may find themselves alienated from the rest of the world and more and more they may find themselves becoming either disillusioned with Bush's impact on America's image, or adopting isolationist opinions about the rest of the world - which path they take will depend on their knowledge of the rest of the world.

Unfortunately Americans, are for the most part not well traveled (less than 20% hold a US passport), and in spite of their "melting pot" culture are, on the whole, notoriously ignorant of foreign cultures and exhibit a low tolerance for a multiplicity of ideologies. Those that stay at home are subject to an American media is dominated by programming made in America by Americans for Americans. This results in an incredibly narrow perspective of the rest of the world - in the extreme case Americans expect the rest of the world to be just like them - eager capitalists seeking the essential individualistic freedoms of wealth and property manifest by the right to shop, or completely unlike them - dangerous freedom haters who eschew the cult of the individual and shopping. These may seem like simplistic generalizations, but listening to Bush campaign for the 2004 election confirms that this is indeed how he sells himself to his base of voters, which he famously labeled as "the haves, and the have mores". Recently I encountered an example of an America who came back from a holiday in Spain very irate - he just could not believe the level of interest and anti-Bush rhetoric the Spaniards exhibited. To have interest in our election is one thing, actually give a damn about the result seemed to be too much, especially when it contradicted the pretty portrait painted by Bush of Spain as America's great ally in Iraq. If Americans get irate when other countries feel like they have some say in our local politics or take liberty to ridicule or leaders, how then, I asked myself, do the people of other countries feel when they are unceremoniously labeled as part of the "Axis of Evil", their leaders labeled as dictators and tyrants, and their people consigned to the level of freedom haters?

In the next four years anything could happen as the last four years clearly showed. The anti-Bush voters certainly fear we'll see massive escalation of military actions by the USA requiring huge increases in military spending, sky-rocketing deficits and the national debt (all at record levels already). Worst of all they fear reinstatement of the draft to get enough people to serve in the armed forces which is already enacting every measure possible to stop people leaving its service. Anti-Bushites fear the "with us or against us" ethos will continue to polarize feelings towards America leading to more terrorist attacks and those countries all its supporters. Likewise America's policy of preemption in Iraq will become a standard setting one for nations across the world who have a grudge against their neighbors and enemies, and become a justification for arms escalation from those that fear such preemption - North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons being a case in point. All-in-all the fear is America's new found aggressive preemptive foreign policy will lead to a net decrease in the safety of all people across the world.

Even if the Bush war on terror ultimately runs out of money and support, there is a fear that American society itself will be attacked as the ultimate arbiter of Americas identity - the Supreme Court - is stuffed full of conservative judges. An overturning of the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision on a womans right to choose abortion is widely anticipated, along with further decisions that will attack the constitutional separation of church and state that has so far largely kept religion out of US politics. The government may then create more "faith based agencies" that spend federal money but discriminate against recipients based on their religion (or lack thereof). Also feared are more rulings in favor of the rights of corporations (especially their influence in the political process and rights to conduct business in any way they see fit without government intervention), and against the rights of people especially their privacy, right to dissent and organize against the status quo without being labeled terrorists or enemies of the state and locked up indefinitely without any recourse. A given is that Bush will continue his efforts for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man a woman only - in direct contravention of his 2000 election campaign stance that gay marriage was an issue for individual states to decide and not a federal issue.

Even without the Supreme Court on his side it is clear that George Bush fully intends to continue with his policy of letting money do the talking. His policy is continuing to cut taxes and let the money in peoples and corporations pockets define the economic future of the country. He wants to cut social security, he wants medical care even more privatized and he wants to put more and more kids into schools run by businesses instead of local government. But statistics from the US government itself show that the trend in America really does obey the rule that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Income and wealth has shifted alarmingly out of the middle and working class (and you thought America didn't have a class system!) and into the top 5% of wealthy, or even more alarmingly into the top 1%. A greater percentage than ever of Americans is not working (as opposed to purely unemployed, a statistic that does not include those who have given up looking for work), and a greater percentage than ever have no health insurance and are existing with an income level classed as poverty. America has been in this place before - it during the gilded age before the social upheaval of the depression era and subsequent massive changes instigated by Franklin .D. Roosevelt that brought in workers rights and social security and limits to the power of large corporations.

What will become of the beleaguered anti-Bushites during his next four years? From my California home I've met many sane, intelligent people seriously contemplate moving overseas - Europe or Canada is the most mentioned destination. Such relocations are unlikely to occur, few people have the luxury to uproot on a whim, but certainly they are an indication of how seriously people take the re-election of Bush. It shows that they believe that America is becoming, or has become, a country they just don't feel comfortable living in anymore. I'm not sure why it is that Republicans choose to hunker down and fight against a President they don't like (see the documentary "The Hunting of the President"), but Democrats choose to stay home, talk and anguish about it or just plain run away. If Michael Moore and a few other prominent voices are to be believed democrats just need to organize, get off their apathetic rear-ends and fight the good fight bringing democracy to the streets in whatever way is necessary. No matter what happens, clearly many people believe - on both sides of the Bush fence - at stake is the very identity of America and what it stands for.

The most pessimistic of the anti-Bushites believe that in the Bush Presidency, America has lost its way, become deluded by some gilded false idol, and a siren song of fear uncertainty and doubt that has caused us to relinquish essential freedoms and put personal gain over the common good of American society and even the world. Unless something moves to stop it, there will be a return to global instability along with a new gilded age reminiscent of the 1800s when plutocratic wealthy corporate barons were running the country for their own benefit.

The documentary "Berkeley in the Sixties" paints a grim picture of how student unrest and dissent against the Vietnam war spiraled out of control into running battles with authorities, cars overturned and how such civil unrest became a national phenomenon that ultimately shut down the war in Vietnam. Many people believe that any effort to re-instate the draft will have a similar effect in America. People may trade their vote for a tax cut and a promise of personal safety, but when it comes to their and their children's lives a higher standard is going to be used to judge the government, one that will surely not garner a majority support.

Will the anti-Bushites resort to such tactics? Will civil unrest become the hallmark of the second Bush term? One of the most caustic Bush critics I have talked to pointed out that historically a great revolution required a long period of oppression under a brutal dictator or regime, implying that another four years of Bush may be enough to awaken the American people to revolt. Personally I somehow doubt it even though riots in America are certainly not a thing of the past - recent experiences in Los Angeles during the Nineties proved that and show how easily even the worlds number one democracy can lose control of its populace.

Yes, the re-elected Bush and his supporters will probably be insufferably arrogant and take re-election as a carte-blanch endorsement to achieve as much as they possibly can. However the humiliating loss by Kerry against a president widely labeled as "the worst ever" will be enough to revitalize the Democrats and other opponents. Efforts to improve the American democratic system by eliminating the electoral college, eliminating corporate money from politics, allowing transferable votes, and proportional representation will take much longer than four years to have effect, perhaps lifetimes or centuries if America as an institution survives that long. In the mean time Democratic and anti-Bush supporters will continue to organize more and more effectively until a populist candidate can emerge to fight the 2008 election -when we know for sure that George W Bush will not be on the ticket There are even signs that the American media system is beginning to wither under public pressure for more objectivity. Strongly partisan TV companies are being widely identified as such thus weakening their efficacy. More people are writing to newspapers and protesting media bias, or simply setting up their own independent news sources and counter-spin channels.

Some say that Hilary Clinton could be the candidate to beat the Republicans in 2008 but its too early to say - if Bush continues to foul up badly enough even a glove puppet fielded by the Democrats could win in 2008. Two more years of Bush could be enough to end it all - the congress and senate could swing far enough to the congress in 2006 that Bush becomes a lame duck President unable to do anything that he wants. Regardless, Bush opposition will continue - four more years of dissent and protest may wear down the Bush opponents but it will be character building stuff that will define a generation and invigorate political participation in a way unseen since the Vietnam era and the social unrest of the 1930s depression era.

Ultimately the Achilles heel of Bush's second term in office will be his very golden idol - money. In hist first term Bush set simultaneous records for tax cuts and increases in government spending in a way that instigated long lasting impacts on the financial well being of America. Tax cuts and increased government spending may be the double dose of recessionary recovery medicine, but the impact of four more years of Bushanomics - huge deficits - will have a devastating effect on this countries viability. Foreign investment and confidence in America will dwindle, exchange rates will hurt our imports for essential foreign resources we have become dependent on, and Bush will then face an embarrassing quagmire at home as well as overseas. Economic failure and a war were end of the George Bush Senior era and they will definitely usher out his son, even if it is four years late. Even if the people of America are still enveloped in a cloud of fear those people that worry about only money from day to day - corporations - will bring him down. Seven years of America at war spending billions every week on bringing freedom to everywhere but home will have hurt them so badly that they will not be willing to continue to endorse a continuation of Republican profligacy - something they always assumed Democrats were fond of.

Where did Kerry go wrong? I believe Kerry didn't go wrong at all, Kerry was just himself all along and he was chosen to be himself. I believe it was the Democratic party that went wrong by fielding a candidate that was just too middle of the road to inspire support. Bush supporters were always going to vote for Bush, but swing voters and the non-voters needed something more than Kerry to get their X on the ballot form. Howard Dean may have been mocked by the media, may have been controversial by wanting to get out of Iraq, and put his foot in his mouth from time to time, but he was ideologically their strongest candidate - even if he had lost against Bush he would have defined an identity for Democrats that was something other than just being the anti-Bush party. I don't think Dean would have baulked at being labeled a liberal, and I don't think he would have been afraid to point out that Bush the emperor has no clothes on. Personally I believe that Dean would have been able to get a sufficient number of apathetic non-voters to the polls in addition to the anti-Bush voters who, regardless of the candidate, would "hold their noses and vote" as many did for Kerry.

If Bush had campaigned in 2000 with his 2004 message of "fear, uncertainty and doubt" dictating global interventionism and empire building he would never have beaten Gore. Such a message of doom and gloom, contrasted with the bubbling dot-com era that preceded 2000 would never have won the hearts and minds of America. However Bush did campaign and win with that message in 2004 and the reason that it worked is still the terrorist attacks on America of September 11th 2001. What we have learned since then is that Osama bin Laden got Bush and the American people on the run by using their own fear against them and three years on the fear is still working against them. bin Laden hasn't even needed to launch another terrorist attack - even the idea that they are vulnerable, and every American knows they are, is enough. And America will always be vulnerable to terrorism, as will every nation knows and there is simply no such thing as winning a war against terrorism. America needs to look to other nations that have successfully dealt with terrorism and aggression against them by disillusioned unhappy factions. After two world wars the rest of the world has mostly learned that there is no such thing as military eradication of beliefs and ideologies, just individuals and economic wealth. If America continues to insist on use of military might to try and preemptively eradicate anti-Americanism and regimes it views as undemocratic then it will eventually find it necessary to do the same to do the same against its own people that disagree with those actions, something that is the very antithesis of the America dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's a dream that could be shared by everyone - I look forward to the return of the country to a President that believes that there is a way to deliver that dream other than at gun point.