us elections
Eight Catastrophic Years of
George W. Bush
The wave of anti-Americanism, which progressively in-
Ji+í Pehe
creased after the attack on Iraq, is probably the most
tragic aspect of Bush’s heritage.
uring his eight years in office,
George W. Bush managed to do
something that no other US president had done before him: almost completely destroy the reservoir of “soft power” (as classified by neo-Marxists), which
had made the United States an inspiration to the world.
If we consider the United States to be
an imperial power, we must amend our
traditional definition of imperialism: it
is one not based on military invasions
and the conquest of new territories, but
instead on a type of hegemony achieved
through expanding and exporting its pervading cultural and political identities.
Evidence of America’s “soft power”
is found in those individuals who have
criticized America for exporting a new
form of imperialism, for shielding its
own global interests despite claims to the
contrary, and who have simulateneously
been captivated by the American lifestyle,
freedoms and pop-culture.
But the United States’s strength lies
not only in its ability to export US culture
and technologies, but in the competencies of its government.
Since the days of President Wilson,
the United States has flaunted its opinion
that democracy, its founding political
system, is the standard by which all other
D
countries should measure their governments. In fact, throughout the 20th century, the United States made a tradition
out of exporting its democratic ideals, as
it sought to implant democratic governments to its liking in sovereign states,
which, for the first part, had just emerged
as the capitulating enemy of war.
The 2000
presidential
elections will
forever be
remembered as
a dark spot on
modern American
democracy.
But it was Bush who, under the influence of neoconservatism, decided that he
would export democracy by force.
And although this was not a first for
a US president, previous presidents had
acted out of a conviction in basic human
rights and trade freedoms. These ideals
subsequently became the basis of interna-
tional conventions throughout the 20th
century. The Clinton administration, for
example, vindicated its military actions
in the Balkans to the international community with appeals to international law
and human rights. The Bush administration, in contrast, made overtures to “the
good” with terminology and expressions
that were quasi-religious in nature.
The mistake was made right
at the beginning
The manner in which Bush was elected to
office preempted his unsuccessful presidency. The 2000 presidential elections
will forever be remembered as a dark
spot on modern American democracy.
As a quick recap, Bush’s opponent,
Al Gore, won the popular vote by a few
thousand votes. However, given the
manner in which the American electoral
system works, the final decision came
down to the winner of the state of Florida,
where Bush’s brother was governor. In
this state, of all states, thousands of votes
from ethnic minorities, who were more
likely than not Gore supporters, were
not counted, allegedly due to problems
with the voting system. Speculation of
a rigged election followed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the
United States, largely consisting of con-
[ 32 ] THE NEW PRESENCE / autumn tnp.indb 32
5.12.2008 14:13:16
us elections
The United States remained largely divided throughout all of Bush’s presidency.
The country – previously a symbol of
progressive governance through democratic dialog – was fractured into two
almost “enemy” camps between Bush’s
“red” states and the democratic “blue”
states, which supported Gore in 2000
and John Kerry in 2004.
From the beginning, Bush approached
his presidency with a missionary’s zeal.
He did not strive to heal America’s ailments, but to change her. He sought to
squash the difference of opinion. And, no
less, he did so with a religious subtext.
September %%, %
There is some question about how the
Bush presidency would have evolved had
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
never happened. But what is certain is
that following the attacks, the United
States largely succumbed to militant quasi-religious rhetoric, in which the “war
on terror” became a portrait for a battle
between good and evil – a mission on
which the fate of the “free” world relied.
In reality, America’s enemy was not,
in essence, any real threat to the West.
Terrorists from the ranks of Islamic fundamentalists were certainly capable of
murder in numbers. But until September
11, fundementalists were in a very small
minority. Their attack on the United
States or on Western democracy
was – as it was later portrayed –
more a battle for influence in
the Muslim world.
A “terrorist victory” against the powerful Western civilizations would, on the
other hand, require that the West give up
what made it strong: individual freedom
and pluralism.
Unfortunately, some of the Bush
administration’s first reactions indicated
a trend toward tightening internal security on account of personal freedoms.
Furthermore, Bush tried to use anti-Muslim sentiment following the September
11 attacks to strengthen his own quasireligious agenda in the United States.
The failure of Bush’s presidency is also
marked by his move towards unilatirism.
Despite the fact that terrorists had attacked the United States, arguably using
the US as a symbol of the West, Bush
painted the picture of a war between the
United States and a nation of evil.
A conflict which could be described with some benevolence
as a conflict between
Islamic fundamentalism and the va-
PHOTO: ČTK
servative judges, weighed in and deemed
the Florida elections lawful and made
Bush president.
The American public largely respected
the decision of the Supreme Court and
even Al Gore eventually conceded defeat.
But the biggest problem in this situation
wasn’t the legality question of the Florida
elections.
The problem was what followed: despite
leading with only a fragile and divisive
victory, Bush started strong-arming an
agenda backed by neoconservatives and
the Religious Right. Instead of trying to
unify a divided America, he tried to force
his conservative values on a large segment
of Americans who, still reeling from the
elections, strongly opposed his office.
autumn / THE NEW PRESENCE
tnp.indb 33
[ 33 ]
5.12.2008 14:13:16
us elections
lues of Western political pluralism, ultimately became a fight between “supernational terrorism” and American values,
giving Bush’s push a nationalistic subtext.
At the time, Clinton’s former adviser
Zbigniew Brzezinski and other analysts
argued that Bush purposely created an
atmosphere of fear to help him win the
2004 elections.
Iraq
It is in this neoconservative context that
the United States’ traditional Wilsonian
doctrine transformed into a doctrine
which exported democracy by force,
and played a key role in the attack on
Iraq in the Spring of 2003. On the other
hand, Saddam Hussein’s regime was,
without a doubt, a reasonable target
for military intervention, if only for its
long-term disregard for international
law, UN resolutions, and basic human
rights.
It was a murderous regime. If the
Bush administration had been willing to
find allies and to interpret the incursion
in the same way that America had during the conflict in the Balkans, Hussein’s
government could have been removed
without widespread dissent amongst the
international community.
But the attack on Iraq was neither
executed under the flag of human
rights, nor international law – causes
which could have rallied most Western
countries to America’s side. Instead, the
Bush administration largely carried out
the invasion in the name of American
security and American interests.
Even under these circumstances, the
Bush administration could have made
a case for the invasion. But the fashion in
which the war was carried out precluded
widespread approval.
A relatively small number of soldiers
won the war itself during a well-planned
and well-executed invasion. In the
months and years that followed, however,
there were too often too few of them to
stabilize Iraq and get the growing insurgency under control.
According to neoconservatives, the
United States was supposed to shine as
an example of democracy and thereby
induce other countries to reach for
democracy on their own. But as it turns
out, the country’s economic and political
disruption has shone instead.
The attack on Iraq, as opposed to the
previous US attack on Afghanistan, went
completely against the ideas embodied in
the international fight against terrorism.
Saddam Hussein’s secular government
was by no means an ally of Al Qaeda. The
conquering force’s inability to stabilize
the country led it to become a platform
for internal fights between terrorist
organizations. Iraq became a symbol of
a “democratic” regime installed by an
occupying force.
The attack on Iraq –
independent of the
previous attack on
Afghanistan – went
completely against
the logic of the
international fight
against terrorism.
Bush tried to use
the sentiments
from the September
11 attacks to
strengthen his
quasi-religious
agenda in the US.
The invasion of Iraq, for the most part,
bypassed international law and dealt
a large blow to the trans-atlantic alliance.
Relations between the Bush administration in the United States and its traditional
allies in Western Europe froze.
Globally, the damage done to American prestige was even greater. The wave
of anti-Americanism, which progressively increased after the attack on Iraq,
is probably the most tragic aspect of
Bush’s heritage. America ceased to be an
attractive example for a whole generation
of young people throughout the world.
The insistence on using force with little regard for the opinions and concerns
of the international community changed
the face of the United States – at the end
of the Cold War the country emerged
selfish as it enforced its own needs to the
detriment of others.
While the United States has previously convinced the rest of the world that
American interests are world interests,
the Bush-led United States found itself in
isolation.
Economic crisis
The instability of economic conditions in
the United States is, presumably, the last
indication of the Bush administration’s
failure. The conflict in Iraq proved too
great a financial burden, even for the
largest economy in the world.
Furthermore, the tax decrease (that
Bush promised when he came into office) compounded with the costs of war
to produce catastrophic repercussions.
Bush’s administration did not only swallow the large budgetary surpluses of the
Clinton administration, but will leave
behind the greatest deficit in US history.
The mortgage crisis, to which the
weakness of the whole economy is contributed, was the final straw. Bush will
leave behind a country in the middle
of a recession, and at a time when the
country’s largest mortgage companies
have been nationalized in order to halt
a depression.
Something positive?
A comprehensive and analytical assessment of the Bush administration’s time in
office raises the question of whether there
exists something positive during his two
terms. Such positives are truly hard to find.
For some, the improved situation in Iraq
carries a degree of hope that the country
may stabilize. For many, it’s too late.
The most positive thing that Bush –
one of the least popular presidents in
US history according to polls today –
will leave as his legacy is the belief that
America needs to change. Most of all,
the end of the Bush era brought about
a desire in the nation for a new direction.
Barack Obama’s victory in the recent
presidential election is the result. Most
Americans and American allies believe
that after the Bush administration,
things can only get better. Bush, in that
sense – and unfortunately for him – is
the catalyst for a new sense of optimism.
Jiří Pehe is a director
of the New York University in Prague
[ 34 ] THE NEW PRESENCE / autumn tnp.indb 34
5.12.2008 14:13:18