Bush’s Re-election is a Bad Sign in the International Scene

José Reinaldo Carvalho

The reelection of the President of the United States, George W. Bush, goes against humankind’s perspectives and the hopes of millions of men and women that long for justice and peace in the world, both impossible in a scenario characterized by the prevalence of an aggressive policy of a superpower that views ruling the planet as its raison d’etre. Likewise, it frustrates the efforts made by millions of United States’ citizens to whom the agenda that prevailed in the last four years was socially devastating.

The result of the ballots, in a well known obsolete electoral process, subject to all kinds of frauds and schemes, controlled by the economic power and aimed at turning the public opinion into a bland body, could not be worse to the forces of social progress, democracy and peace throughout the world.

The ultra-conservatives who gathered around Bush had a great victory. The President was reelected with the majority of ballots cast by the people and the Electoral College. His Republican Party reached majority both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. He is now strengthened with the vertiginous feeling of total power.

He wins despite generalized rejection displayed by mass demonstrations against the war policy, against favoring the wealthy and great groups of monopolist financial capital and the attacks on democracy represented by the Patriot Act. He will remain in power for another period of four years despite reiterated manifestation of the country’s intellectuals and the expression of contrariness regarding the current state of the nation displayed by the dignified reserves of the people of the United States. Bush is reelected despite the diffuse conscience that nothing could be more anti-republican and anti-democratic than his conception of the world, his program and his government’s methods; that nothing is more opposite to the Bill of Rights and the notion of democracy of the great nation that emerged in the world in the 18th century than the platform of the Republican Party and the agenda that predominates since Bush and his aides reached power four years ago.

As much as it besieges democracy and republican principles, Bush’s reelection represents a serious threat to the peoples of the world, to the sovereignty of peoples and to the balance of forces in the planet. In his first speech after the reelection was confirmed, even before all votes were counted, the President said that 'there is no limit to the greatness of America,' mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan, the first two targets of his strategy of 'preemptive war' and readdressed the recurring issue of this administration and the electoral campaign the 'war against terror.' He said that he will 'democratize' those countries and that the United States will 'spread freedom to humankind.' In fact, the United States’ imperialism spreads horror and devastation. Bush’s reelection is presage to an era of violence and insecurity.

Repeating the slogan of 'war against terror' in his first speech after being reelected is reaffirming and objective chosen lately and that has already become official in the Republican Party’s platform and official documents: 'Terrorists declared war on America and now America declares war on terrorists. We pursue peace by persecuting and fighting the enemy outside our borders so that we don’t have to fight them home.' (The Republican Party’s Platform; approved September this year). Bearing in mind the experience of the war against Iraq, we know that it is a matter of a mere pretext to justify new moves against sovereign nations.

We do not want to frivolously incur in foreseeing what and how will be Bush’s second mandate. We alert to its general outline and the trends it shows. Strategically, the White House and the Pentagon are aiming at countries that are suspects of possessing weapons of mass destruction, at consolidating the political, diplomatic and military power of the United States – indisputable in the medium and long terms – the fulfillment of a foreign policy that denies diplomacy and multilateral organizations – such as the UN, for instance, now viewed as irrelevant, the fight against the countries belonging to the 'axis of evil' and the 'democratic restructuring' of the Middle East.

An agenda with such objectives will be a permanent focal point to insecurity and conflicts all over the world. Even displaying colossal military power, the fulfillment of his staff’s plan is far from being a simple task. It will face the peoples’ growing opposition, increasing democratic and pacifist awareness throughout the world, the legitimate desire for sovereignty and the progress of many nations. All of Bush’s prognostics mail fail, as the criminal and neocolonialist occupation in Iraq has failed until now due to the population’s gritty resistance.

Domestically, Bush outlines a new anti-social offensive, the next step of which is partially privatizing Social Security, what will inspire class conflicts. The general scenario is characterized by the vicissitudes resulting from a systemic crisis, colossal fiscal and foreign deficits, debt, a financial bubble and a weakened dollar, as well as the obvious degradation of the democratic life and the skyrocketing increase of poverty.

Bush’s reelection is a sign of the times. An ominous sign. It indicates the prevalence of a conservative trend in the world and a longer period in which an unfavorable correlation of forces regarding the progressive and revolutionary forces will prevail, what undermines the coherence of thinking that, due to 'pragmatic or commercial reasons,' the continuity of Bush’s administration of 'better' for Brazil. A great South American nation, bearer of the ideals of the democratic and sovereign integration of the peoples of the continent, Brazil will not seek elsewhere but in its inner force and in the bonds of cooperation with friendly peoples and countries the road to defend its interests, regardless of the character or party that rules the superpower.



--Carvalho is Vice President and Secretary of International Relations of the Communist Party of Brazil; chairman of the Brazilian Center of Solidarity to the Peoples and Struggle for Peace - Cebrapaz

____________________________________________________

Bush’s phony 'political capital' From The Guardian Bob Briton

It did not take long for the election-night platitudes to stop. On Wednesday last week George W Bush was sweet-talking frustrated Democrat voters: 'To make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can to deserve your trust.' The very next day, the posture in front of the TV cameras had changed completely. 'You asked do I feel free? Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.'

Like his junior Australian partner John Howard, the re-elected US President is ignoring the fact of a narrow victory to claim overwhelming support for more attacks on the health, education and security of ordinary Americans while furthering advantaging the wealthy and pressing ahead with more military adventures. Bush got no such ringing endorsement.

Out of a vote of around 114 million, George W Bush managed to get just three million more than the Democrat candidate John Kerry. To put it another way: if just over one and a half million people had reconsidered their decision to rally around the post 9/11 'war-time' leader, the vote would have gone the other way.

While the religious right was successfully mobilised once more in support of the Republicans at the polls, the other big news of the elections was the strong turnout of the country’s youth. The usual mass media sources played down the significance of the youth vote, however the 51.6 per cent turnout of 18-29 year-olds was the highest since 18-year-olds were given the vote in 1972. Young people voted 54 per cent for Kerry and just 44 per cent for Bush. Thankfully, the future is in this group’s hands.

The US People’s Weekly World noted other positive aspects of the campaign. Unions turned out about 27 million people to vote. New means of reaching people through entertainment and over the internet came into their own:

'While the results were a setback, a magnificent, progressive, grassroots electoral movement has been born. With the labor movement as its backbone, it encompasses women, African Americans, young people, Latinos, environmentalists, Native Americans, civil rights groups, Asian and Arab Americans, seniors, religious people, Internet activists, artists and first-time voters. They came together to wrest our country back from the grip of a small group of far-right extremists. This new grassroots movement did heroic work. It couldn’t win yet against the fear, racism, sexism, homophobia, terrorism and corporate power the powerful far right group wields, which influenced significant numbers of people.'

The fact remains that the results, however close, are indeed a serious setback. In the same way that Howard has wasted no time pressing ahead with anti-people policies, Bush will set about implementing his 'Plan for A Safer World & More Hopeful America'. Even some of the language used to sell the Bush second term agenda would sound familiar to Australians.

For example, Bush will push for:

--Tax reform – 'to make the tax code simpler for taxpayers, encourage saving and investment and improve the economy’s ability to create jobs and raise wages'. Encouraging savings and investment actually means tax cuts for the rich and corporate sector. Creating jobs means lower wages. Bush’s first term record show that he cares little for creating jobs, and less for raising wages.

--Health care – 'President Bush will call for a community health center in every poor county in America.' Nobody may answer but you can bet there will be plenty more poor counties by 2008 if Bush gets his way.

--Welfare reform – Bush wants to build on the success of previous 'reform', 'strengthening families and helping more welfare recipients achieve independence through work'. He wants to create 'Opportunity Zones, which will encourage public and private investment and provide priority consideration for Federal benefits to communities that are under economic hardship.' The same old story – kick more people off social security and onto the resources of struggling families or into pitifully low-paying jobs. Faith-based charities will get a bigger share of the welfare action once Bush has ensured they can participate 'without discrimination'.

--Judges – 'President Bush will continue to appoint to the Federal Courts well-qualified judges who share his commitment to strictly interpret the law'. Bush is set to stack the Supreme Court with right-wingers, not only to enshrine his 'hang ’em high' policies but also to get support for more unpopular legislation. High on the list are outlawing abortion, gay marriages and stem cell research and possibly the introduction of conscription.

--Intelligence Reform – Bush will appoint a new National Intelligence Director to coordinate the Administration’s 'anti-terror' intelligence gathering. Howard actually got in before Bush with introducing this one.

--'Defending American Lives and Liberty' – 'President Bush will continue to lead a worldwide coalition to fight terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.' (GOP Agenda) There will be no let up in the US-led drive to secure resources and markets for favoured transnational corporations. Bush is not dissuaded by the mounting US death toll in Iraq or the appalling cost in Iraqi civilian lives. Nor is he concerned at the record budget deficit and social consequences his wanton policies have produced.

The American people have also got a long period of tense struggle ahead of them. There will be pressure on the Democrats to move further to the right to try to steal some of the religious right vote off the Republicans. Support for Kerry and the Democrats from progressive US voters comes about in large part because they are a 'less bad' option for workers and other exploited people. The support offered even on this basis would evaporate if the Democrats neglected their interests further to chase the unlikely support of extremist religious voters. The ALP would do well to take note of the parallels with Australia’s recent experience.



» Find more of the online edition.