Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Although the rest of the world does not have a vote in the elections, it is drawn into the great American debate about the internal and external orientation of the world8217;s sole superpower. Whichever direction America chooses on Tuesday, November 2, the world is bound to be affected.
Barely 72 hours before voting begins in America, opinion polls underline a dead heat at the national level. But the real indicator of the potential outcome lies in the 10-odd swing states, like Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, which are poised to decide the winner.
The 40 or so other states show clear margins for either President George W. Bush or Senator John Kerry. In most of the swing states, opinion polls are within the margin of error.
UNDER Bush, the centre in American politics has ceased to hold. Bush won the election in 2000 with a razor thin margin. The US Supreme Court intervened to stop nearly five weeks of legal wrangling over the counting of votes in Florida to let Bush become president.
| nbsp; | The close race this year is a reflection of the political tensions in an America that is terribly insecure. A Bush victory will accelerate the transformation of foreign and domestic policies. Kerry, on his part, will tinker with old approaches and seek to slow the pace of change in America |
Many Democrats believe the Republicans 8216;8216;stole8217;8217; the last election. That Al Gore, Bush8217;s Democratic rival, won the nationwide popular vote but lost the election has not been forgotten by Democrats.
Bush, whose political mandate was under question, had no desire to rule from the centre after a divisive election. Instead he chose to go with his ideological faith. Whether it was dismantling the last vestiges of the welfare state or reordering international relations, President Bush was not the one to split the difference with Democrats.
America8217;s global war on terrorism, initiated after the shock of September 11, 2001, united the nation briefly. In elections to the Congress in 2002, Republicans not only retained the majority in the House of Representatives but also regained control of the Senate.
The underlying divisions in America, however, could not be papered over. The war in Iraq and an uncertain economy at home widened the political gulf in the United States.
THE close race this year is a reflection of the political tensions in an America that is terribly insecure. Whoever wins this election, the divisions will continue. A Bush victory will accelerate the transformation of American domestic and foreign policies. Kerry will tinker with the old approaches and seek to slow down the pace of change in America.
A gung-ho Georgian era
Like it or not, a Bush re-election will change the world
A Bush win will herald an intensification of the political revolution 8212; reworking the nature of American capitalism and restructuring of international institutions established after World War II.
| nbsp; |  |
No surprise then that there is so much controversy at home and apprehension abroad. Republicans will interpret a Bush victory as an endorsement of the course he has set for America in the past four years. It is unlikely that Bush might mellow down in the second term.
ON the economic front, everything Bush has done in the past few years and said on the campaign trail underlines his commitment to transform American capitalism. In the next four years, Bush will be eager to complete the attack against the old economic order, launched by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
In his second term Bush is set to further lower taxes. The implicit goal is a single and simple flat rate of taxtion for everyone. The massive expansion of the budget deficit in the past few years has not shaken President Bush8217;s belief in the argument that lower taxes will lead to greater individual wealth, saving, investment and growth.
Bush also emphasises further reduction of the role of state at home. He strongly believes state intervention through the Great Society Programmes of the 1960s only accentuated social problems. Greater individual responsibility and not the munificence of the welfare state is the solution to America8217;s social problems, Bush argues.
|
TWO MEN TWO AMERICANS
|
|
|
DIPLOMACY ECONOMY Story continues below this ad SOCIETY IDEOLOGY PERSONALITY |
The 8216;8216;ownership society8217;8217; is his slogan. And he points to rapid growth of home ownership in America over the past four years.
Like most Republicans, President Bush is an ardent free trader. The loss of American manufacturing and service sector jobs amidst globalisation, Bush believes, cannot be reversed by protecting American markets. The challenge of globalisation, according to Bush, must be met through education of the labour force.
FAITH in religion has been a defining part of the persona of Bush, who once named Jesus Christ as his 8216;8216;favourite political philosopher8217;8217;. Alliance with the religious right is more than a mere political convenience. In declaring immoral the attempt to equate the traditional institution of marriage with same sex unions, Bush not only mobilises the Christian right but also much of the social conservatives in America.
Bush8217;s conservative impulses at home have been matched by the determination to destroy the old global order. Bush has little time for the traditional alliances with the European powers, which helped maintain peace and security in the world through the 20th century.
International institutions like the United Nations, created after World War II, Bush demands, must either adapt to new conditions or get out of the way. The challenges posed by international terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons have reinforced the convictions of President Bush that the old tools and doctrines of international security need to be discarded and new ones fashioned.
BUSH ideologues recognise the emerging shift in global balance of power from the Atlantic to Asia Pacific. The rise of China and India, they see, make it imperative that a new global equilibrium be established.
No wonder then that Bush is hugely unpopular in much of Europe. The old European powers stand to lose the most in a reordered world. In the name of international law and strengthening multilateralism, the Europeans are, in effect, seek to strengthen the status quo.
Despite the problems encountered in Iraq and the controversies generated by his war on terrorism, Bush is unlikely to waver in the notion that the Middle East needs to be fundamentally restructured through democratisation and political modernisation.
Utopian as this goal might seem, Bush is stuck in the Middle East and cannot disengage in the second term. Bush8217;s tactics on Iraq are certain to change after the elections. He would look for greater internationalisation but might not cede control over the destiny of Iraq to a multilateral organisation.
As the nuclear controversy with Iran begins to escalate, the Bush administration is preparing for tough action. That could include use of force.
FOR India, a Bush victory would ensure continuity. India8217;s engagement with the US has been extraordinarily productive in the past four years. Bush8217;s re-election would allow India to rapidly consolidate the burgeoning ties with America.
On trade, Republicans with their free trade orientation are less critical of outsourcing. On the nuclear question, which has hobbled Indo-US relations for decades, New Delhi and Washington are down the path of a reconciliation under Bush.
India8217;s biggest gain from Bush has been the new view in Washington that India must be treated as an emerging global power. In the past India chafed at the distorting South Asian prism that defined Washington8217;s approach to New Delhi. Equally important, Bush8217;s attempt to recast the world order creates new openings for India on the global stage.
King John8217;s great charter
Under Kerry, the old order will changeth. Yielding place to the older
These trends should have produced a 20-point lead for Senator Kerry in the opinion polls. Despite his strong performance in the three presidential debates, Kerry has not been able to convince Americans it is time to change course.
Kerry could yet win the election narrowly; but why has he not made the sale yet?
THE Republicans have managed to define Kerry as a 8216;8216;liberal8217;8217; from Massachusetts. For nearly two decades now, traditional liberalism, so dominant along America8217;s two coasts, has begun to lose appeal, particularly among the American middle class and even the blue collar workers, for whom social conservatism remains a dominant force.
Bill Clinton, despite his liberal orientation, successfully projected himself as a 8216;8216;New Democrat8217;8217; treading the centre ground in American politics, which has steadily shifted right since the mid-1970s.
Kerry, on the other hand, has had big problems shedding the liberal tag. His attempts to move to the centre during the campaign allowed Bush to accuse him of 8216;8216;flip-flops8217;8217; on most issues.
| nbsp; |  |
If Bush has unleashed a revolution in domestic and foreign policies, Kerry could not mount a full-throated liberal critique for fear of vacating the centre. This has put him in an unenviable position.
Taxation has always been unpopular in the US. While attacking Bush for widening the fiscal deficit, Kerry had to promise that he will not raise taxes on lower income groups. His accusation that Bush has favoured the rich resonates with his core constituencies, it also generates suspicions about him in the middle classes as a 8216;8216;tax and spend liberal8217;8217; in favour of big government.
Kerry knows as well as anyone that the logic of globalisation cannot be resisted, but he has to protect his core voter groups from too fast and destabilising a change. His domestic economic policies reflect the enduring dilemmas of social democrats throughout the West on adapting to the new global environment without becoming clones of the conservatives.
KERRY is also trapped on the wrong foot as he tries to balance his liberal views on social and ethical issues while opposing the Bush policies. Despite being a Catholic, he faces opposition from the Catholic church which rejects his liberal tilt on abortion and gay marriages.
On foreign policy, too, Kerry had to steer between the temptation to attack Bush policy in Iraq and avoid the danger of being branded an anti-war liberal. As he sought to demonstrate competence to lead America during war time, Kerry had to come up with an Iraq policy hardly different from that of Bush.
His emphasis is on the internationalisation of Iraq by giving a greater role to European allies. His rejection of unilateralism and commitment to traditional alliances and multilateralism have made him immensely popular in Europe and many other parts of the world.
While pointing to the central role of the UN in maintaining international peace and security, Kerry had to align with Bush in saying he woulld not ask for a 8216;8216;permission slip8217;8217; from the UN to defend American interests. In promising a 8216;8216;sensitive8217;8217; or 8216;8216;smart8217;8217; war on terror, Kerry has attempted to differentiate himself from Bush. But in operational terms, Kerry promises more of the same.
WHILE Bush has won many enemies in the Arab world, Kerry cannot afford to antagonise Israel and has little space to deliver a different policy towards the Middle East.
On use of force abroad, Kerry tends to be more interventionist than Bush. Kerry and his liberal ideologues argue the US and UN have a duty to intervene in failing states and undertake the task of nation-building.
While Bush emphasises selective intervention to secure US interests, Kerry talks of the need to put American power to work in defending and promoting such values as human rights and international law.
IF Kerry wins the election, India, like all other nations, will find ways to deal with him. Such an outcome, however, would demand that India gear up quickly to face new pressures. While Kerry cannot stop outsourcing by American companies, he has promised tax policies that slow down the process.
Kerry is certain to bring strong commitment on non-proliferation. American flexibility on nuclear issues, seen under Bush, could reduce in a Kerry administration and create fresh complications for India. Kerry8217;s emphasis on existing legal instruments like the non-proliferation treaty could put New Delhi in the line of fire.
But the real challenge from a Kerry presidency lies in the return of the limiting South Asian framework in Washington to deal with India. To play a larger role in the world, India needs a revision of international rules.
But Kerry is wedded to the old order created on the ashes of World War II. And India does not figure prominently in that scheme of global organisation.
