Will America change?
Senator John Kerry may have won the Iowa caucus but I have the distinct impression that it will be Bush for 2004. The economy is strong and he'll have to be real unpopular to go during such a period. Annualised growth of 8.2% for the third quarter teeters quite close to that of China's at 9.9% and considering the relative economic differential (America's economy is estimated to be ten times larger than that of China) it's quite a success.
The fact of the matter is that Bush has pursued remarkably firm and wise policies in that he's significantly eased the tensions of the Middle East, by establishing de facto control over it's most critical region juxtaposed as it is between the key players Iran and Saudi Arabia, disquietened the Sub-continent through the pacification and liberation of Afghanistan whilst furthermore strengthening the American economy through precise tax cuts and elimination of double taxation. He's pursuing a far-sighted immigration policy and all in all has done a very good job, with a particular emphasis on foreign policy. What has feared the world is that the hyperpuissance, long feared by the French has finally reasserted itself, following eight years of dormancy following the Cold War, to present coordinated and decisive global policies.
America has emerged from a global recession, which would have crippled any other nation, stronger and more confident than ever. The administration of Iraq is proceeding particularly well and Bush is seen as the national leader, his rather dubious path to power obscured by the way he rallied of the nation post 9-11, therefore I don't see how the Democrats have a very viable stance. They can't criticise the war, since it will alienate most of the population, and Bush's stance on immigration is relatively immune to attacks since the policy is at any leftish. What Bush has cleverly done is that under the gard of neo-conservatism he has pushed policies that otherwise have a very leftist orientation (for instance expanding Medicare and government spending even the avowed stance ) and are healthy for the long term prosperity of the nation.
He believes in small government like any good Republican but has not shirked from intervening when the strong hand of government is required. Even in 2000 I was quite confident that Bush was the man to support and that he would portend a new era for America in the 21st century. I think his electoral victory next year will vindicate my conitnual belief.
Further note:
I once read that Yithzak Rabin was such a bold leader because he had no ideology or idealism. He only wanted the best for Israel and for him that meant carving out the tumour of Palestine, therefore his primary reason for engaging with Arafat and embarking on the Camp David accord. Bush is similar in that vein in that perhaps because of his lack of erudition and highly concentrated approach he is motivated only by achieving America's aims, moreso than appeasing any ideological divide. Even the 1..5 bn family bill is a welfare package, seen as a bulwark of Bush's ideology, that has the unintended consequence of reducing the rampant illegitimacy rates amongst American minorities.
Zachary Latif 13:12 |
