The Presidential Papal Prince and the Apologetic Liberal

Will Durst, the comedian once joked “people say George Bush is like Hitler. When they say this… I disagree… Hitler was elected!”.

The upcoming US presidential election is perhaps one of the most decisive events of this year. For one reason, this election could be a crucial factor in determining the fate of Iraq. For another, it will reveal whether American citizens can elect an illiberal candidate like George Bu(ll)sh(it). This blog is about Kerry and Bush’s respective manifestoes, but before I launch into them, a little heavy writing on terrorism is in order since I am writing this in an attempt to see if either Bush or Kerry hold a divergent view on matters of international importance (like Iraq).

I have often maintained that if the US is so keen on hunting terrorists down, it should declare war on itself first. No other country in the world has supported more terrorist regimes than the US. No other country has been more in need of being accused of human rights violations. No country in the world has shown such blatant disregard for international law and international organizations like the UN. You think, is this rhetoric? Sadly, no, it isn’t! Chile, Guatemala. Costa Rica, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, El Salvador, Peru, Mexico, Columbia, Vietnam , Korea, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Japan – all of these countries have suffered the consequences of US intervention. These consequences are not only political but involve heavy human costs. In 1998 the US government gave Saddam Hussein 500 million dollars to buy American farm products. The same year he started the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds in Northern Iraq. A year later, the US government doubled his subsidy, gave him high quality germ seed for anthrax and various other paraphernalia that could be used to create Weapons of Mass Destructions. Why they did so remains a mystery?

9/11 was a wake up call to Americans everywhere that cross-border terrorism had reached their shores as well. Terrorism was no longer a Third World produce that affected and debilitated the toiling messes of humanity in countries of Asia and Africa. With the crushing of the Twin Towers rose the mighty US State aligning itself with a Catholic morality and appointing itself as the crusader of the civilized world, the defender of democracy. The US was determined to fight the barbaric ‘rag head’ hordes that dressed their women in purdah and ate borscht for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

The new warring Pope of the Christian world was George W Bush Jr, a man who lost money on every business venture he ever undertook, was on vacation for 42 per cent of the time he was in office before 9/11, was elected in a spurious election in what I think is one of the most blatant subversions of democracy and has since then proved that he can hold his own in a debate only if his answers are radioed to him. Even the most spineless politicians have a tendency to rise in stature and wisdom when confronted with the sheer importance of the positions they hold. But for Bush, wisdom is limited to funny one-liners and speeches written by other people. Bush is a full member of Mill’s power elite, and as the theory claims, will always work in the best interests of his own self and his cohorts.

This election is therefore crucial because it may signal the start of a long process of making things right again. What surprises me the most about the last four years is that in spite of 9/11 and the reactions it generated in the academic community about the need to rethink foreign policy, nothing seems to have changed. In fact, US foreign policy has become more interventionist and interest oriented. We only have to look at Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L) to arrive at that conclusion. What is ostensibly an attempt to democratize Iraq is in reality an attempt to liberate Iraq – one barrel at a time!

Now for the manifestoes!

The first point on John Kerry’s agenda is the rather altruistic aim of building strong families. He plans to do this by ‘putting the government back on the side of American families’, ie, increasing health facilities, better education and building economic security for the basic unit of the state, the family. Being true to his Liberal moniker, Kerry wants to ensure civil rights for everyone, especially those who are targets of hate crimes. On the economic front, he wants to create more jobs by cutting taxes of businessmen and reducing the extent of outsourcing. His manifesto mentions the need for making rural America economically stronger. Kerry even has the Green front covered by advocating the need for creating cleaner, greener communities. He is in favor of reducing health insurance premiums and costs of prescription drugs to make them more accessible to middle class and economically dis-priveleged Americans. However, there are two important fronts on which Kerry appears to be on an equal footing with Bush. Consider this,

“Today, we consume 2.5 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East, where instability has pushed prices to record highs. These soaring energy costs are burdening middle-class families with higher gas prices, and our dependence on Middle East oil is putting our national security at risk…America will be safer and freer when the resources that fuel our economy are in our own hands, when we develop new energy sources right here in America.”

From this I am forced to conclude that Kerry’s appointment will not make much of a difference to occupied Iraq. The US will not withdraw their troops even if he comes to power mainly because Iraq is an incredible resource that the US has at its disposal now. Notice also that there is no talk of conservation of energy by Americans. If Americans use fuel and they’re falling short of it, the best way to get them more fuel is not to convince them to save, but simply conquer another country which has abundant reserves of such fuel. It was extremely disappointing to read this point on Kerry’s agenda since essentially on an issue of international importance it seems that Kerry will follow the policy precedent already laid down by the Bush Administration. There is also the matter of the cost of pulling out of Iraq which the Democrats may have decided will be political suicide since a number of Americans do believe that the war on Iraq IS a war on terror and therefore, justified. Any government that tries to pull out of Iraq will be viewed as compromising and indecisive. Unfortunately, for the Iraqis, US intervention has become locked in or path dependant. The political costs of pulling out may be more than the costs of continuing the intervention.

A second disconcerting aspect of Kerry’s agenda is that he views the strengthening of homeland security in terms of information gathering and taking ‘appropriate’ steps to stop terrorism. My concern is primarily with what an ‘appropriate’ step implies. In my analysis, it is merely another way to say ‘OK, if they don’t listen to us, maybe they will if our guns talk’. As a peacenik myself (and South Park creators be damned for whatever they call us) I hardly think that is an effective method to get rid of terrorism. I am not saying Osama should live. Indeed he should be removed from this earth before he repeats his murders. The problem is that policies like the Bush Administration’s have consolidating influences within regions. So, if you want to get rid of Osama get RID of Osama. Don’t reduce an entire country to rubble in the process and have him get away. This only creates more anger within a community like Islam that is linked by one faith and one belief. What US policy makers need to realize is that not every culture behaves in the ‘homo economicus’ fashion. There are matters of faith that are stronger than matters of rationality. You cannot counter a different structure of rationality believing that people of a different faith can be coerced into western notions of rationality. Putting it crudely, the US cannot invade Islamic societies and find them waiting and willing on their knees to be democratized. No one wants to be invaded and no one likes invaders. If terrorism exists it is due to the structure of a world that allows for such things to happen. I believe that religious terrorism arises when economic deprivation is coupled with a structured ecclesiastical authority that seeks to make itself prominent in the international community. When an attractive way of life (Western) is tantalizingly dangled in front of a deeply reified religious society, they cannot grab it because the lack the skills, the language and the economic power to do so. Instead, they will rebel and the basis of this rebellion will be something close to their hearts, like religion. Of course, these local terrorists become even more dangerous when they get economic power from (let me guess) states like America. So if there is terrorism in the world today it is because the US gave them economic support. The US created the Taliban (in the late 70’s when the erstwhile USSR invaded Afghanistan) and gave Saddam Hussein money and means to develop WMD’s. Osama is an incidental voice in this larger terrorism the world confronts. If he goes, there will be another and another and another…

My final gripe with Kerry is about his shifty and apologetic stand on women’s rights. Admirably, Kerry’s manifesto recognizes that there is a gender differential in the salaries of men and women, with women earning only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. However, on the issue of women’s sexuality Kerry is extremely careful. Of course his stand can be seen in the light of the brickbats he received after opposing the partial-birth ban bill. He talks about the women’s right to choose but stops short of saying anything radical like ‘I support abortion’. If there is anything worse than a conservative, it is an apologetic liberal!

Bush’s manifesto is indeed a joke and I say this with an apprehensive giggle. In linguistic terms it makes you smile. But the apprehension sets in when one realizes that a man who can rhetoricize to the extent of sounding like a fundamentalist, may be elected President with the power (weapons stockpile) to destroy the world if he so wishes. His first emphasis is on the need to increase investment in the economy. Alright so far! He wants to build compassion and values in the family structure to make them stronger. Here he begins to sound a bit like Kerry. His similarity to Kerry is reinforced when their health and educational agendas are compared. Bush also wants to reduce the costs of prescription pills (which brought to my mind images of a pill-pushing papal- aping President), and, wants to increase the efficiency of the educational system through various measures.

So where is the rhetoric you ask? Right here, ladies and gentlemen

“We will face new challenges – swiftly, surely, and with steely resolve. We cannot forget that the terrorists remain determined to kill as many Americans as possible, both abroad and here at home, and would like nothing more than to use the world’s most deadly weapons against us. With such an enemy, no negotiated peace is possible; no policy of containment or deterrence will prove effective.”

(um…’the world’s most deadly weapons’ are under your command Mr. Incumbent President)
And also here,

“Fifty million people have been ‘liberated’ from despotic, totalitarian regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq..”

(er.. and how many of these are dead ‘liberated’ people?)

“The terrorist camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed. The Afghan government is conducting its own democratic elections and is an ally in the hunt to bring Al Qaeda terrorists to justice…”

(er.. small point, but Osama has established more camps and they’re in a country with a leader who calls himself the CEO. A CEO of a country???)

“Supported by coalition allies, the men and women of our Armed Forces have brought Saddam Hussein- a declared enemy of America and supporter of terrorism who had the capability and a proven willingness to produce and use weapons of mass destruction - to justice. The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. An interim government is leading the Iraqi people to freedom.”

(er.. Saddam NEVER attacked the US, the official 9/11 report stated clearly that Iraq and Al Qaeda apparently had no links, WMD’s were never found, AND just who are these allies – UK and POLAND??)

Bush’s manifesto also talks about the need to explore ‘new’ sources of energy and open up ‘new’ markets to further the export of American products. I wonder if ‘sources’ and ‘markets’ refer to geographical spaces called other countries. Bush also does not have any pro minorities and women agenda points. Does he not consider ethnic communities and women important? The last election saw the disenfranchisement of a section of the African-American community in Florida. Further, Bush seems to think that a woman’s physiology is owned by the state with his stance on the ban on partial-birth abortions as an attempt to strengthen the family. I think abortion is an extremely important issue and a personal issue. Women do not go out there and get abortions done as a matter of course; structures (financial, family, drugs, rapes, desertion) compel them to. No state has the authority to take away from women the right to make a choice about their bodies. Abortion is a choice women make and the freedom to make this choice without suffering the consequences is their entitlement.

The question I raise is simply this, are Bush and Kerry very different people or essentially two sides of the same coin? Even if Kerry is elected it may be extremely difficult for him to extricate the US from Iraq. The deep commitment to national interest is a rational way to behave, but the question that concerns me deeply is the cost. If I were a voter (and I’m not) I would look for the assurance that the meaning of ‘collateral damage’ would change from being ‘some more dead muslims’ under Bush, to ‘a regrettable incident involving unnecessary loss of innocent lives THAT MUST STOP NOW’ under Kerry. I would then vote for the candidate that chose humanity over national interest.