Too Early For Optimism
November 23rd 2006 13:04
The US midterm congressional elections were seen as a bulldozing victory for the Democratic Party. Even George W. Bush, a man not known for knowing when to admit defeat, called it a “thumping” for the Republican party. The Democrats have run their campaign on promises to change many significant domestic & foreign policies that have shaped America – and the world – since the advent of the Bush administration. The biggest changes are expected to be in regard to the most prominent issue in modern Western politics – the Iraq War.
Indeed, all signs point to this election being a harbinger of change. It saw the election of the first female Speaker Of The House, Nancy Pelosi; Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in the history of US Congress; and Mazie Hirono & Hank Johnson became the first Buddhists elected to any US governing body. And of course, standing in the shadows to the side of the stage is Barack Obama, a progressive black Democrat who might just be the next US President.
For any opposer of the policies of the Bush administration (a group by no means limited to the Left wing) this is cause for celebration. After six years of unilateralism, flag-waving, lies, scandals and human rights abuse, it seems that things have turned a corner. It seems to me that everything that stretches far away from the middle will either break or bounce violently back. Bush, Cheney and especially Rumsfeld are currently being bounced, and do not seem to be enjoying it.
At first I was as pleased as many other observers. And I suppose I still am. But in spite of all the positive signs we are seeing, I'm still finding it hard to stay optimistic when I think about the history of such events; other times when it must have seemed that everything had reached a turning point and we had learned a valuable and unforgettable lesson.
The Vietnam War was the ugliest spectacle in military history since the Charge Of The Light Brigade. Afterward America publicly announced that its withdrawal from Vietnam heralded a fundamental change in its foreign policy: that America would no longer attempt to be “the world's policeman”. No politician involved with it came out totally unscathed. Images like a Buddhist monk immolating himself in public are not the kind that you want placed next to your picture in the history books.
Here we are, three decades later, up to the neck in a horrific guerrilla war started on dubious (at best) principles. The soldiers of America are besieged from all sides and within, and with no clear enemy are turning on the civilian population. The people of Iraq, once possibly grateful for the American intervention, are beginning to despise the stars and stripes. There is no end in sight. And of course, at the end of the day, it is the people of Iraq who are really bearing the brunt, with over half a million civilian casualties and counting.
Richard Nixon was America's last real political pariah, a man who went out in a blazing cesspool of disgrace so fetid that a blowfly would not go near him. After his significant role in the atrocities of Vietnam, the bombing of Cambodian cities and support of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime headed by Pol Pot, history sees Nixon as a monster because he burgled an office. What's more, three decades on, two of his high-ranking minions – Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld – are big wheels in the Bush administration, two of the most powerful men in the world.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had a relatively good track record in office. While he was no saint and I make no apologies for some of his disgraceful actions (e.g. the handling of the civil war in Yugoslavia) at least he was a strong believer in diplomacy, and opened dialogues between many warring states. All of that was for naught when the press got wind of an extramarital blowjob.
The American people's critique of Bush is a sickening echo of this kind of backwards morality regarding their presidents. People are not disturbed by his breach of the Geneva Conventions, the American constitution, his approval of torture, or the lies and dubious reasoning behind the war. They are concerned by his 'mishandling' of the war, not the fact that he started it at all. History will not paint Bush as a monster, but merely some bungling incompetent. I would say that he has much to be thankful for.
As long as the people do not have any clear perception of right and wrong in the actions of their leaders, things will never change for the better. The Democrat victory is an excellent starting block, and a heartening step toward progress. But it is not enough, it is not an end. We should remember the fate of a certain fool who stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier, not so long ago, grinning and prematurely saying “mission accomplished”.
Indeed, all signs point to this election being a harbinger of change. It saw the election of the first female Speaker Of The House, Nancy Pelosi; Keith Ellison, the first Muslim in the history of US Congress; and Mazie Hirono & Hank Johnson became the first Buddhists elected to any US governing body. And of course, standing in the shadows to the side of the stage is Barack Obama, a progressive black Democrat who might just be the next US President.
At first I was as pleased as many other observers. And I suppose I still am. But in spite of all the positive signs we are seeing, I'm still finding it hard to stay optimistic when I think about the history of such events; other times when it must have seemed that everything had reached a turning point and we had learned a valuable and unforgettable lesson.
Here we are, three decades later, up to the neck in a horrific guerrilla war started on dubious (at best) principles. The soldiers of America are besieged from all sides and within, and with no clear enemy are turning on the civilian population. The people of Iraq, once possibly grateful for the American intervention, are beginning to despise the stars and stripes. There is no end in sight. And of course, at the end of the day, it is the people of Iraq who are really bearing the brunt, with over half a million civilian casualties and counting.
Richard Nixon was America's last real political pariah, a man who went out in a blazing cesspool of disgrace so fetid that a blowfly would not go near him. After his significant role in the atrocities of Vietnam, the bombing of Cambodian cities and support of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime headed by Pol Pot, history sees Nixon as a monster because he burgled an office. What's more, three decades on, two of his high-ranking minions – Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld – are big wheels in the Bush administration, two of the most powerful men in the world.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had a relatively good track record in office. While he was no saint and I make no apologies for some of his disgraceful actions (e.g. the handling of the civil war in Yugoslavia) at least he was a strong believer in diplomacy, and opened dialogues between many warring states. All of that was for naught when the press got wind of an extramarital blowjob.
The American people's critique of Bush is a sickening echo of this kind of backwards morality regarding their presidents. People are not disturbed by his breach of the Geneva Conventions, the American constitution, his approval of torture, or the lies and dubious reasoning behind the war. They are concerned by his 'mishandling' of the war, not the fact that he started it at all. History will not paint Bush as a monster, but merely some bungling incompetent. I would say that he has much to be thankful for.
As long as the people do not have any clear perception of right and wrong in the actions of their leaders, things will never change for the better. The Democrat victory is an excellent starting block, and a heartening step toward progress. But it is not enough, it is not an end. We should remember the fate of a certain fool who stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier, not so long ago, grinning and prematurely saying “mission accomplished”.
| 70 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnR
No Myth Fitness