Barry Rubin looks at the US election from Jerusalem:
The Region: Hatreds and hot air
By BARRY RUBIN
Rarely in living memory have partisan political antagonisms been so high in America. It's not as if the two sides really have vastly different views on immediate issues, or competing solutions.
The hatreds are based to a large extent on stereotypes, personalities, and exaggerations, a reality which those in both camps would be quick to deny.
On the one hand, President George W. Bush is seen by many – especially the intelligentsia, which often seems unaware that any other viewpoint exists in the country – as an idiot warmonger who is destroying America; on the other hand, Senator John Kerry is perceived as a dangerous leftist.
In fact both are men of limited ability who basically lack any coherent program for making the United States better or dealing with its problems.
The Iraq war is a grand distraction from the simple fact that both liberals and conservatives – much less the small but noisy Left – don't have answers for the country's real issues.
When it comes to the economy, medical care, inner cities, declining infrastructure and so on – and this also applies to any broad design of America's role in the world – all their ideas have been tried without impressive results.
Speaking strictly from the Middle East point of view, what is the difference between the two men?
Let's start with Kerry, the challenger. He and his promoters or aides have said a lot during the campaign in an attempt to portray Kerry as a responsible and moderate candidate. Rather than merely bash Bush over the Iraq war, Kerry has positioned himself as someone who understands that any president must deal with the existing situation.
He favors a withdrawal, but in a context that includes the need to try to establish a stable order in Iraq. This is not really so different from Bush's position.
ON ARAB-ISRAELI issues Kerry has restated the main lines of historic US policy. Periodically, the Kerry camp implies that the only reason there is no peace is because Bush didn't try hard enough, a point on which Bill Clinton could educate them. Basically, though, they explain that they have learned certain lessons, including the fact that Yasser Arafat – who might leave the stage feet first during the next American presidential term – has been the main roadblock to peace.
All of this, however, should not make us forget that the campaign is largely irrelevant. The only important thing is what Kerry would do as president. I foresee three worrisome but not fatal concerns over a Kerry presidency:
The inevitable relearning of reality. A new president spends roughly one year getting his policy process organized and finding out that there were good reasons why his predecessor did not do, or succeed in achieving, certain things.
In this specific case that means discovering that Arab states demand the United States solve their problems but are themselves unwilling to help; that the Arab-Israeli issue is not the key to the entire region; and that there is no one at the Palestinian helm who will make a compromise deal.
There are times when the loss of a year would be a serious matter, but since nothing much is going to happen anyway, this is less true of 2005 than has sometimes been the case.
The possible control of Middle East policy by the Left and State Department bureaucracy. With a Kerry presidency there is a possibility, though by no means a certainty, that policy would be run by those who believe they can make a deal with Yasser Arafat or solve all the region's problems by pressing Israel for unilateral concessions.
Risk. Bush is a known quantity; Kerry is not. How would he behave as president? While Bush has no great record, Kerry's almost quarter-century in the Senate has been remarkably undistinguished. He has never had an important idea, made a great speech, or introduced a major piece of legislation. Critics say his voting record is very much on the Left side of the spectrum. But Kerry has never been an ideologue, merely just an unimpressive politician.
Will he be able to meet the challenges? Of course, Bush himself has many negatives, but in some ways he has shown strong leadership in the post-September 11 era. In others he has made serious mistakes and created unnecessary antagonisms.
Just because the French or extreme Left doesn't like him is no reason for removing Bush from office; but his problems go way beyond that point.
Bush has been friendly toward Israel, of course, but given the white-hot hatred of Bush by so many Americans, one could argue that a Kerry presidency would, in a best-case scenario, carry on roughly similar policies on a basis enjoying far more consensus support. Of course, one doesn't know that would happen.
Let each camp make its case as if nothing could be more obvious than that their man is far superior. But while everyone must make a choice by November 4, the only things that matter are going to happen after January 20.
jpost.com |
