Even if Bush lost the next election, whoever is the next President will have to continue in Bush's direction after Iraq.
While I agree with many of the sentiments Mike expressed in his latest missive, the above statement seems too pessimistic and deterministic even for me. While it is true that it may take years to dig out of the mess created by Bush's hegemonic foreign policy, there is just no way that a strong successor president will simply carry on the status quo of the Bush administration. If the unfortunate social and financial trends seen by Mike should continue, then by late next year it is extremely doubtful that Bush will win a mandate for reelection by the American people, who will have witnessed the greatest decline in American power, prestige, freedom that has occurred since this republic was founded. Four more years? Is your family better off than it was in 2000? Are you kidding? The next President will have a mandate for a complete about-face, not just in economic policy, but foreign policy as well. The extremist rightwing hardliners will be purged in favor of a realistic foreign policy based on cooperation, negotiation and problem-solving via teamwork and dialog.
It's mostly about economic development, not regime change through the barrel of a gun. We live in an era of tremendous technological progress. There is no fundamental reason why rich and poor nations must be at war with one another or why ethnic differences must prevail over our common shared humanity. All we need is education (especially cross-cultural training and understanding) and sharing in common struggles to eradicate poverty, hunger, illiteracy and exploitation.
The current administration simply doesn't understand that the reason that the poor don't embrace modernity is that modernity has torn their traditional cultures apart without delivering any tangible benefits. Instead modernity has merely widened the gap between the rich and the poor while unrealistically raising peoples expectations. This must change before there can be genuine and lasting world peace. The culture of the world does not want to be reshaped in the mass-consumption consumerist model of America, nor is it in the interest of America for it to be, for such levels of consumption and waste would quickly strain the earth's carrying capacity. It is folly to imagine that we can transform a tribal middle eastern society into a functioning western democracy by bombs and free elections. It is delusional to imagine that this can be the cornerstone of peace in the Middle East, a fantasy even shared by some liberals like Thomas Friedman.
Even if we were to succeed in this misguided hundred billion dollar plus adventure, all we would really achieve is the transformation of a country that exports oil into one that imports oil instead. What a bonanza! Does it create genuine indigenous economic development or lift Palestinians out of their misery? Not at all. Instead it will be viewed by historians as a failed graft between very different cultures, an evil experiment in human cloning at the societal level. Unlike Friedman, who suggests that if it weren't actually happening, he would pay good money to be entertained by this "thriller", I'm not much of a fan of these violent Rambo-style Hollowwood adventure fantasies.
JMHO,
Sam |
