Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
Posts: 14,703
Political Matrix E: -2.58, S: 2.43
|
|
« on: September 04, 2004, 09:02:46 AM » |
|
|
« edited: September 04, 2004, 09:03:35 AM by LucysBeau »
|
In his speech to the Republican National Convention, Georgia Democratic Senator Zell Miller stressed the need for unity and the setting aside of partisan differences to support President George W. Bush in the 'War on Terror'.
He cited the example of Wendell Wilkie, the defeated Republican presidential candidate in 1940, who went on to stress a need for a loyal oppositionto FDR in a two-party system. This was common sense because in 1941 Europe was at war and it was only a matter of time before Europe's War became America's War.
George W. Bush has waged a determined and, arguably, effective 'War on Terror', I don't doubt that, following the al-Qaeda atrocities of September 11. Senator Miller now seems to under some illusion that the honourable thing for Senator John Kerry to do now is set aside his presidential campaign, and the values, hopes and aspirations of the Democratic Party, in the "national interest". I disagree.
I, myself, have supported both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in 'War on Terror'; and Iraq. Threats to global peace need pre-emptive action and as long as the United Nations remains 'tiger without no teeth', I don't have much faith in them.
However, as far as domestic policies go, Bush, unlike FDR (in my humble opinion the greatest US president with the exception of Abraham Lincoln), hasn't done a good job. Bush inherited a projected national surplus of $5.6tr (from Bill Clinton, who was a good example of why two-term limits should be revoked) in 2001, which now stands at c. $7.22tr national deficit; while the US has lost 2.3m jobs during the first three years of his administration compared with the 22m jobs created during Clinton's eight years in office; and that's without even mentioning other domestic policy failings. Now that's a stark contrast! Bush's record on jobs is the worst since Herbert Hoover and we all know what happened to him. He was defeated, in 1932, by FDR and justly so.
As much as the 'War on Terror', such domestic failings need to be considered by the American electorate before they vote on November 2nd because they are all of vital importance to the national interest. Therefore, it is because of Bush's domestic policy failings that I support Senator Kerry in the forthcoming presidential elections (or at least, that's how I would vote if I were American). It's domestic policy as opposed to foreign policy, which primarily determines how I vote in the UK. I'm not one of those people who has a job and couldn't care less about those who don't nor am I one of those who lives well, yet couldn't care less about those who live in poverty. I have a profound social conscience, which is based on my Christian faith and its social gospel, which is why I chuckle when I here Pat Robertson say that he was a Democrat until he found God and became a Republican - as if only Republicans believe in God.
Getting back to Miller and his appeal for bipartisanship. Had Bush been to date effective, as opposed to reckless, in his domestic policies as FDR was, then that might have all been very well, but the reality of the situation is far from it. The Democratic Party cannot, nor should not, be expected to lie down and follow the Bush agenda like that of some compliant wife!
At the RNC, Rudy Giuliani compared Bush with the great Sir Winston Churchill so I'll use the example of Churchill to stress what true bipartisanship actually means. During World War II, the United Kingdom had a Coalition government from 1940-1945 headed by the Conservative leader Churchill, who ran the 'war front', with Labour leader Clement Attlee as Deputy PM (effectively from 1940, though not formally until 1942), who led the 'domesticfront'. This happened despite ideological differences, which were rightly set-aside in the national interest. Thus, if it were to happen true bipartisanship would require exactly that, with Bush, and the Republicans, and Kerry, and the Democrats, sharing executive decision-making and legislative initiatives. Sadly, Miller's 'Maddoxesque'and demagogic speech at the RNC, which ironically would have been more appropriate in intolerant and repressive societies such as Iran, was anything but reconciliatory and compliance to the Bush agenda, either domestic or foreign, by a servile Democratic Party is not an option.
In all honesty, I can';t see true bipartisanship ever happening. For a start, I'm not quite sure if the circumstances of the day actually warrant it. Terrorism is a global threat, but 2004 is not comparable with 1940. Terrorism can be resolved effectively where the problem is spatially confined as, for example, with the IRA in Northern Ireland. However, al-Qaeda threatens the very existence of civil society, which transcends spatial boundaries. Islamic fundamentalism is a reactionary movement, which threatens our progressive ideals and the liberal democratic principles on which they are founded. Such terrorism is global and requires a global strategy between nation-states. A consensus builder can only truly execute such a global effort against terrorism.
I can't believe that Bush has squandered the national surplus obtained during Clinton's presidency by, among other things, giving tax cuts to the very people who need them least. He doesn't even seem to bothered about it either ,perhaps he's taken the attitude that he's only in the Oval Office for eight years tops so I'll let somebody else sort my mess out. Still judging by his convention speech, Bush evidently does have a domestic agenda but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for great things to come along not if the last four years are anything to go by. He does not deserve a second chance. Effective presidents need to be competent all-round in the socio-politico-economic and international arenas and Bush falls well short of that.
Of course, these failings can't be blamed on Bush alone, especially when a servile Republican controlled Congress has aided and abetted his squandering of the national surplus. I had hoped that the Democrats would have re-gained control of the House of Representatives following the failure of that reactionary debacle 'Contract with America' and the welcomed demise of Newt Gingrich as a major political player but since redistricting, due to demographic changes, looks like it's going to benefit the Republicans, so I doubt the Democrats are going to win the House in 2004. If Kerry wins the Presidency, it won't be so bad but if Bush is re-elected, there will be a lack of accountability.
All the clever packaging at the RNC cannot obscure the tawdry truth beneath. Two Republican parties with a moderate face, on the one hand, as espoused by Senator John McCain (a Republican I have much respect for not least because of his Vietnam service), Rudy Giuliani (a New York hero but then you get the inappropriate Churchill analogy - please!) and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who defined what it means to be Republican in a series of the most uninspiring one-liners that I've ever heard, which quite easily could have ended with the word Democrat). Those three moderate contenders haven't a hope to get the GOP nomination in 2008 and as to whether a naturalised Austrian-born American is allowed to run for the Presidency remains to be seen. So you never know if the law is repealed, yours truly could be well on his way to America (only joking).
Then, on the other hand, you have the reactionary Republican platform - talk about taking America backwards! 'Contract with America' proved that. And then you get a six-point or so bounce which gives Bush an 11% lead over Kerry -it beggars belief. Kerry';s really going to have to pull out all the stops. It's far from over yet though and the Democratic case can still be won. Talk about Bush's domestic, economic and fiscal failures, and lets face it there is plenty of 'em, and how you would seek to put things right. Continue to play the game fair and square. Don't let Bush off the hook and let him steal this one.
In sum, and in light of Bush's domestic failings and alienation in aspects of his foreign policy, Kerry, who served his country in Vietnam and in the US Senate, deserves his fair shot. He strikes me as an enlightened and thoughtful man, who has the capacity to become an able consensus builder, especially on the international stage. Bush has blown it. This ought to be a very important issue to Americans. I make no bones about it America's standing in the world has diminished substantially under Bush's leadership. I honestly, and most sincerely, believe that America is a great nation and most worthy of commanding international respect across the world that she deserves. Sadly, I don't see much of that forthcoming should Bush win a second term in office.
Now before anyone starts, I know I'm British, I know I can't vote for your president, etc but take it as a complement that I'm interested in American affairs. Our political opinions and orientations might differ, but civil society allows freedom of speech. Our respective countries have long stood hand-to-hand, as both friends and allies, and long may it continue.
Dave
|