Four more years: four more years of that smirking arrogance; four more years of the world being run through the prisms of American oil interests and Christian fundamentalism; four more years of inaction on climate change.

If things are bad internationally, they will be worse than that for millions of Americans, as Bush continues his feed-the-rich policies on tax cuts and drives forward against welfare. He promises a conservative shift in the supreme court which will be grim news for science, particularly stem cell research, grim news for women's rights over their own bodies, grim news for homosexuals - in general, bad news for the enlightenment. Nor is that for only four more years: by appointing reactionary judges, Bush can cement a shift in US public culture that will be felt for decades to come.

Hard though it is to turn up silver linings in this black cloud, there is at least one. The Bush victory clarifies the choice for Britain and for Blair. He may not have wanted Kerry, but Kerry would have provided him with an escape route of a kind, a return to social democratic leadership on climate change and Africa, and a plausible continuation of his foot-in-both-camps attitude to Europe and America. But the Americans have taken that escape route away.

America may look, on the surface, a politically familiar country. British political anoraks adore The West Wing, devour books on US politics, and have imported Washington techniques, terminology and style. We have a kind of mimic-presidency in our prime ministership, and people talk of turning the Lords into a British senate. American campaigning is avidly studied and copied. Politicians learn from ideas dreamed up by Republican and Democrat thinkers. Compared to all this, the political culture of Brussels and Strasbourg still seems alien.

But the Bush victory is a decisive one for the deeply conservative America that is pulling ever more clearly away from Europe. It is a victory for the Christian fundamentalists who believe their country has been chosen by God, and that Bush is the Creator's chosen instrument; and a victory for the neoconservatives striving to build an American imperium. Bush watchers believe his sense of providence and divine mission is strengthening, not lessening. He is a self-certain man who represents a political culture we have not seen in Europe for a long time. We have had modern and post modern; in politics we are getting pre-modern, too.

The Americans have become more religious as we have become more secular. They are turning away from the modern welfare state in a way no European country would contemplate. They have revived the death penalty with an enthusiasm that makes us quail. They are turning away from many aspects of modern times: Ohio rose to prominence overnight, as Kerry's last hope. It so happens that two years ago, Ohio was the first state to compel science teachers to teach a critical analysis of evolution. Creationism, like anti-abortionism, is on the march there.

Apart from the fact that they speak English and have two legs apiece, it is hard to think of anything American conservatives have in common with European liberals. Tony Blair pooh-poohs the idea that Britain faces a choice between America and Europe. Now, it will be evident to everyone, there is a very clear choice, and the choice has to be Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/...1342935,00.html

Using the White House as a machine of centripetal force, Rove spread fear and fused its elements. Fear of the besieging terrorist, appearing in Bush TV ads as the shifty eyes of a swarthy man or a pack of wolves, was joined with fear of the besieging queer. Bush's support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was underscored by referendums against it in 11 states - all of which won.

The evangelical churches became instruments of political organisation. Ideology was enforced as theology, turning nonconformity into sin, and the faithful, following voter guides with biblical literalism, were shepherded to the polls as though to the rapture. White Protestants, especially in the south, especially married men, gave their souls and votes for flag and cross. The campaign was one long revival. Abortion and stem cell research became a lever for prying loose white Catholics. To help in Florida, a referendum was put on the ballot to deny young women the right to abortion without parental approval and it galvanised evangelicals and conservative Catholics alike.

This was linked to what is euphemistically called "moral values", which is social and sexual panic over the rights of women and gender roles. Only imposing manly authority against "girly men" and girls and lurking terrorists can save the nation. Above all, the exit polls showed that "strong leader" was the primary reason Bush was supported.

Brought along with Bush is a gallery of grotesques in the Senate: more than one new senator advocates capital punishment for abortion; another urges that all gay teachers be fired; yet another is suffering from obvious symptoms of Alzheimer's. The new majority is more theocratic than Republican, as Republican was previously understood; the defeat of the old moderate Republican party is far more decisive than the loss by the Democrats. There are no checks and balances.

The idea that George Bush is the first pre-modernist politician is an interesting concept. If so, is the election of Bush the beginning of a new political phenomenon?

I think it might be worth considering what a pre-modernist America will be like. The first change will probably be the appointment of someone like Alberto Gonzales to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is dying of thyroid cancer. This will help to overturn the moderate majority of the Supreme Court. The next four years will see the rights of women, homosexuals and African Americans undermined.

This will be all done in the name of a moral crusade. These people define morality in a very narrow way. Primarily they are concerned with sexual issues. Having sex outside marriage or with someone of the same gender is immoral. So also is having an abortion or watching adult rated material. It will not be long before they will be campaigning against birth control and marriages under the age of 21.

These people appear to be unconcerned with other aspects of morality. For example, the killing of innocent women and children in Iraq, the death of millions in Africa from starvation, or the poverty of their own citizens.

It many ways, the Christian fundamentalists are a mirror image of Muslim fundamentalists. They are obsessed with sex. Especially the sex lives of young women. Much of what is happening is an attempt to maintain and expand the sexual dominance of males. Both groups are particularly concerned with overturning the changes that have taken place in the improvements in the freedom of women over the last few years.

I believe the election of Bush is as significant as the decision by King Victor Emmanuel III in 1922 to appoint Benito Mussolini as leader of Italy. Mussolini made it possible for Franco and Hitler to gain power. However, I doubt if Bush will have this impact on the world. His views are unlikely to have any influence on important political leaders outside the UK and Italy. In fact, Bush’s victory is likely to make it more difficult for his supporters in Europe. Will he get any help at all if he decides to invade Iran, North Korea or Cuba? Blair might be tempted but it would be political suicide. One of the reasons why he is keen on an early election as it might pre-date these actions.

By 2008 the United States will be even more divided from the rest of the Western World than it is now. The big question is what state will the United States be in. Will the poor, racial minorities, the homosexuals, the trade unions, non-fundamentalist Christians, liberals, radicals, etc. join forces to defeat pre-modernism?

Holding referenda on issues such as gay marriage focus the electorate on matters where the crusaders have a majority on their side. It would appear that depsite Bush's victory their majority for the war is being eroded and will be eroded still further. It is a war which they cannot win. Even on this election day where there was a referendum on the war 60% voted in San Francisco for the unconditional withdrawal of American troops. (This information comes from Democracy Now - the story was not mentioned in the British media AFAIK)

History tells us that the crusaders were defeated and defeated and defeated in the middle east and there was a horrific squandering of blood and treasure in the process.

The TV program "The Power of Nightmares" rather optimistically concluded that the public will realise that the neoconservative rhetoric is based on perceived bogeymen which are not really there. When we consider that there were people who *knew* that 100,000 unarmed civilians have been killed in Iraq and went on and voted for Bush anyway. It would seem that we have a long way to go.

In the short term I would expect people to turn away from politics in disgust. Ignore them and perhaps they will go away. In the long term people will revolt against the virtual one-party state in the US .

This is the nadir of democracy.
Nader next time!
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk

There's a much less erudite debate going on at the moment over on the infinitely inferior TES forum regarding whether it is legitimate to challenge the verdict of the people. Although the level of debate is stunningly low, perhaps it is worth considering the question. Are we only democrats when the vote goes the way we like it? I happen to think the American people have picked badly, but picked they certainly have. It may have been a fairly close election, but this time, the verdict of the electoral college will match that of the popular vote. And this on a considerably increased turn-out.

There may be all sorts of explanations for his victory, but I can't really see much new here. American elections have really been marketing exercises for the last 40 years at least. Many have suggested that Nixon lost to Kennedy because of his inability to look well-shaven on the television, and the "would you buy a used car from this man?" was, perhaps, the beginning of negative campaigning. There can have been few TV ads as effective in this campaign as the one Johnson used against Goldwater with the child, the flower and the mushroom cloud.

Even the intrusion of revivalist religion into politics is nothing new. Who was that right-wing populist catholic who caused so much uproar in the 30's? Or to go back even further, what about William Jennings Bryant who made the speech about not seeing the American working man crucified on a cross of gold and was later the prosecutor in the Scopes Trial? Or the Christian Coalition which supported Reagan.

So, there's nothing new about the manipulation of the media, there's nothing new about fundamentalist religion in politics, and there's certainly nothing new about American politicians spending obscene amounts of money on their campaigns. Are the issues new? American imperialism. Environmental degradation. Lack of health care. A tax system which favors the rich. No, not much new there...

The point about the Supreme Court is well made. American lawyers all seem to live an inordinately long time, so appointments which Bush makes now will be around long after he is a dim memory. On teh other hand, I think John's view is unnecessarily apocalyptic. I can't see the Court banning abortion or making homosexual relationships (or heterosexual relationships outside of marriage) illegal. All lawyers are, by their nature, conservative, and this works both ways. There will be a slow but steady shift to the right, but probably not any sudden shift of emphasis.

On the other hand, I would suggest that comparing Bush's reelection to the decision to appoint Mussolini is just a bit over the top. American presidents reign for only four years -- eight if they are re-elected -- and then they go. If, as I believe, Bush's economic and foreign policies are as unsuccessful in the next four years as they have been in the last, then, in 2008, a very different president will be elected. That is, after all, what democracy is all about.

I think such statements also undervalue the beliefs of the millions of Americans who did vote for Bush. I think they were mistaken. Many of them were probably tricked or misled by the media. Many of them may have had "hidden agendas" (they worked for defense contractors or drug comapnies, they benefited from tax cuts, etc, ect). Many others may have been bigots or racists. But surely they can't all have been in these categories -- were they all gullible, or stupid or self-serving of rednecks? I don't think so. Some of them may have felt, mistakenly, I think, that Bush was taking a firm hand against a serious threat by Islamic fundamentalism against western values which I think most of us would share. Merely dismissing the views of such people really isn't the answer, in my opinion.

I also take issue with the statement that there is some sort of moral equivalency between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity. I don't happen to like either, but having lived through the Iranian Islamic Revolution and its aftermath, and having married into a family of Northern Ireland protestants, I can assure you, John, that fundamentalist Islam is much, much, much worse...

If we are to understand what's just happen, I think we need to look at it with an open mind -- as historians should! -- rather than making highly exaggerated statements...

I concur 100% with the above three posts.

John asks what the state of the US will be by 2008?. Great guestion. Under Republican "leadership" these last four years we have seen the Clinton legacy of a balanced budged trashed and the national debt is now at 9 trillion. Yet this was not even addressed during the election. Why?

I am hearing that there is going to be a break in the Republican party over this issue. I can only hope this is true before this country is beyond saving due to this staggering debt.

We know that Bush got out his "base" who are primarily concerned with preventing a woman from the right of choice. Born life is never a concern with these people. Especially those born into a life of poverty. I have also never met a "pro lifer" who was anti war. "Christian values" have instead become the politics of hate. Hardly what Jesus taught!!!

What was even more alarming to me last night was hearing from an old Jewish who told me that he had encountered many other "highly educated Jews" who were spouting all this anti- gay anti- choice rhetoric, telling him that" if a person is moral they must vote for Bush". That was very surprising to me.

Now that Bush and his neocons don't have to worry about a re-election it is terrifying to think what they will do next. Out and out nuclear war with N. Korea??? I don't see the Bush gang utilizing diplomacy to avoid a tough situation. The word is not even in his vocabulary.

Scary times, these.

Dawn (Meredith)

While I do not deny that currently Fundamentalist Islam is worse that Christian Fundamentalism, the crux of the problem is fundamentalism. Fundamentalist zealots are no different that any other extremist in history. Right now the Muslim extremists may be physically more violent on a world stage, but the Christian fundamentalists have been bombing abortion clinics and attacking pro-choice people. While I understand that this does not match the level of 9/11, it is still terrorism.

What is also amazing to me, is that everyone that I have heard talk about campaigning complains about the money issue. "Only the rich can afford to run for office." As a former Fundraising Director for a congressional campaign I can tell you they are right. The problem is that no one is willing to put a stop to it. The person that spends the most, generally wins. Why would this person vote for campaign spending limits? Obviously this is not considered a moral issue. Which brings me to another point. Most of the information I have seen tells us that a large portion of Bush supporters voted for him on moral issues. Yet the fact that he lied, did not seem to bother them, or the fact that he has ordered the mistreatment of prisoners, or the fact that he has used cocaine and was caught drinking and driving. The question is what is the number one moral issue in America today. I'll tell you what it is... Abortion. I was in a discussion with another history teacher in my school the day before the election and his position was that as a good catholic he would not vote for any "baby killers." He equated the pro-choice people to those who stood by, watched and said nothing as the nazis drug the Jews to the gas chambers. He felt that Pro-choice leads to euthenasia to doctor assisted suicide, to socialized (government administered) healthcare which gives the government the right to decide how much a persons life is worth. To say the least I was floored, but this is what the fight is about. As long as the Christian fundamentalists are targeting abortion and the democrates are not willing to attempt to make it illegal there will not be very many democrates elected.

As for Nader, the only way he will ever make a positive difference in the political scheme of things is if he follows the path of Ralph Reed and his Christian Coalition. That is he must begin by winning the local elections and building the base support.





[

I was disappointed not to see a Democrat elected, but I was never all that impressed by Kerry as an alternative to Bush. The American people have made their choice, in the same way as the British people chose to be governed by Margaret Thatcher for 11 years. As Mike says, “American presidents reign for only four years - eight if they are re-elected - and then they go.”

Isn’t there a tendency to support a fundamentalist right-winger when terrorism is perceived as a major issue – as it was in the UK during the Thatcher years? Like Mike, I married into a family of Northern Ireland protestants. They are tough cookies but pussy cats compared to the terrorists currently stalking the world. Northern Ireland is less of an issue now – we have other things to worry about. Two years ago, my wife celebrated an important birthday in Belfast. We had difficulties finding hotel rooms for the whole of our family over a long weekend – because Belfast is now one of the most popular destinations for weekend breaks. During the 1970s I feared going anywhere near the place.

The US is not a homogenous society. Values very considerably from state to state. In Oxford, Ohio, I found that I was only able to drink sitting outside a bar if the outside area was encased in something resembling chicken wire, but in New Orleans I could have walked down Bourbon Street with a glass of beer in one hand and a Hurricane cocktail in the other, with a cigarette hanging from my lip, whilst watching the girls on the balconies exposing their breasts in exchange for a few Mardi Gras beads.

Indeed! Let us look at popular society in America. What are the most popular shows: South Park, Jackass, The Man Show, any of the reality shows. What happens during these shows. People are lied too, trying to find love by being placed on an island and "tempted" by beautiful members of the opposite sex. The man show does nothing more than profess the greatness of beer and breasts, and every comercial break the camera focuses on two well endowed women in bakini's jumping on a trampaline. These shows are condemed by few and watched by many that consider themselves "moral". I am neither. Personally, I could care less what someone watches, some of these programs are very funny, others are interesting at best.

Values also vary from town to town. I live in a "dry" city. In Winfield, Kansas we have no liquor stores and can only buy "watered down beer." But the town south of us by 10 miles has fifteen liquor stores. At the same time the County Fair board refuses to allow the sale of beer at the County fair grounds, all because they believe that it is immoral or will lead to the immorality of our youth. All of which is hillarious when you think of the history of Alcholic consumption in the U.S.

It's going to be an interesting time in Europe in the next few years. The EU will be grappling the question of Turkish entry, where we'll be applying tests of adherence to the values of democracy and human rights which the USA would currently fail (the death penalty, suffrage and the treatment of minorities being the flash points).

Let's just hope that this is the beginning of the 'European War of Independence' - except that I really hope it doesn't come to real war. I think it will be entirely healthy for everyone if we can all just agree that the USA and most of the rest of the world have just taken different paths.

Bush's win seemed to be in direct contradiction to what the exit polls were indicating. To anyone's knowledge, has this discrepancy ever been this prevalent in past elections?

James

From what I know the last time the exit polls were this off was the last time Bush won (2000). I'm not generally a consipracy theorist but could we be on to something here?

I don't think the situation in Europe when Mussolini became Prime Minister in Italy may be compared with what is happening in the USA and the whole world now. Anyway, there have been many changes in most Italian regional and town councils since the last national elections with a clear move of the electorate towards left-wing parties. I agree with David that time may have come for a larger Europe to become (more) independent from the USA, although it will be a long and difficult way.

Closer European Unity is surely curently the only possible check in the world to unrestricted and hideously misguided American power.

On the subject of fundamentalism, let us not forget that mad and dangerous though today's Islamists undoutedly are, they are as yet unlikey to slowly draw out the unbelievers entrails, and tear the skin from their body whilst preacing a homily on their soul's purity. May somebody's Lord please spare us from angry Christians of the old school. I feel they maybe making a comeback

I believe the point about exit polls and the way this election turned out bears some serious scrutiney. The numbers are too far off.

How many places had electronic voting I wonder, with no paper trail?

Didn't we all worry about votefraud when we saw these little computers replacing the paper ballot? If we can get a paper receipt when we use our ATM cards why not when we vote??? Why voting machines with no paper vote as back up?

Call me a sore loser, but I have questions about the exit polls vs. the final (alleged) result.

Dawn

There may be some room for scrutiny regarding exit polls versus results but at the end of the day, this humble Australian who watched events from afar, had no idea what the Dems were really about. Their whole campaign seemed to be fueled by the likes of Michael Moore and Hollywood celebs - and in traditional America, it's obvious they didn't take the message to the voting booths. A Bruce Springsteen concert is one thing but political change is another. I certainly got the feeling that California with its high flyers just didn't play well in the red states.

So what's in store for 2008? Do the Republicans look to Rudy Giuliani and the Dems at Hillary Clinton? I'd like to see those debates.

James

An open letter to my friends around the world:

On Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2004, the sky did not fall. The world as we know it did not come to an end. There was no hidden conspiracy to overthrow the "will of the people". The United States did not gain control of the world.

My fellow citizens elected a poor choice - but they were offered a poor choice. George W. Bush is probably not the worst US president - anyway, he's got some stiff competition (can you spell "R I C H A R D N I X O N?). We will muddle through, as will the rest of the world. I would have preferred a different outcome, but I was not in the majority - and as Mike so eloquently points out, if you want democracy you're going to have to live with a sword that cuts both ways.

The religious issue is troubling, but, again, as Mike points out, is nothing new. The bright side is that George W. Bush now has to clean up his own mess - and it will need tidying up - and he won't have anyone to blame but himself.

The sun will come up tomorrow, people will fall in and out of love, and yes - people will continue to die in Iraq. All of those things would have been true whether Bush or Kerry occupied the White House.

I have faith that my fellow citizens will eventually come to realize that our current system of choosing a leader is deeply flawed, and that change will come. It may even come faster because of the events of Nov. 2.

On the other hand, I would suggest that comparing Bush's reelection to the decision to appoint Mussolini is just a bit over the top. American presidents reign for only four years - eight if they are re-elected - and then they go. If, as I believe, Bush's economic and foreign policies are as unsuccessful in the next four years as they have been in the last, then, in 2008, a very different president will be elected. That is, after all, what democracy is all about… If we are to understand what's just happen, I think we need to look at it with an open mind - as historians should! - rather than making highly exaggerated statements... (Mike Tribe)

I may well be wrong about the importance of Bush’s re-election. However, I dislike the implication that I have reached this position because that I am in some way a poor historian because I have not “an open mind” and have been making “exaggerated statements”.

One of the things a historian does it to make comparisons between events. My point about Mussolini was that he was the first fascist to gain power. This made it easier for other fascist to gain power later (Franco/Hitler). Bush is the first openly Christian fundamentalist to gain power. This was not true of the 2000 election. Bush made no real effort to obtain the Christian fundamentalist vote. As a result large numbers of them did not vote for either candidate. This has been the big change. This is why it is only now we can talk about a pre-modernist president.

I pointed out that I did not believe history would repeat itself (Mussolini leading to a more extreme fascist like Hitler). However, Bush poses a far greater threat than Mussolini ever did. He is the leader of the world’s only superpower. He does not need allies (although a poodle like Blair is helpful).

Mike Tribe and Mike Toliver have pointed out that the United States is a democracy and therefore we will only have four more years of Bush. This raises two main issues. James Richards and Dawn Meredith have pointed out that there are grave doubts about the legitimacy of the result. I do not know of another example in history where the exit polls have got it so wrong. Several independent observers have pointed out that the election process was deeply flawed. There is no place in a democracy for a system where votes cannot be checked afterwards. This system is open to corruption. Why cannot the Americans use a system of voting that is clearly fair and above board? What is wrong with the system used by Britain and other European countries? As much as we disliked Margaret Thatcher, there were never any claims that she stole elections. The last time that claim was made in Western Europe concerned Hitler’s victory in Germany.

There is of course another important factor in the election. At the time the election took place America was at war. The president was also commander-in-chief. There has never been a case in history where the president failed to win re-election during a war. I am sure Bush was fully aware of that. Before the war on terror, Bush was a very unpopular president. Given the mess he has made of the economy, he would have been defeated easily this time if it had not been at war. Maybe that is why he was so keento invade Iraq.

The other issue is what kind of thing can Bush do in the next four years. He now has the benefit of not having to please the American electorate. One can only guess at what the budget deficit will be in 2008. Although I feel sorry for those American citizens who will suffer as a result of his domestic policies, as a non-American, my primary concern is over his international policies. This includes the environment and relationships between nations.

What chance have we now got concerning international agreements on the environment? What will the United States do about the Aids crisis in Africa? What efforts will be made to deal with debt in the underdeveloped world? Will any measures be taken to deal with the obscene numbers that die every day from starvation? What chance the Middle East peace process now? Will the United States now invade Iran?

It might only be four years of bad rule for people living in the western world. For millions in the underdeveloped world, they will not live to see the end of Bush’s period of government.

I also take issue with the statement that there is some sort of moral equivalency between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity. I don't happen to like either, but having lived through the Iranian Islamic Revolution and its aftermath, and having married into a family of Northern Ireland protestants, I can assure you, John, that fundamentalist Islam is much, much, much worse... (Mike Tribe)

This is of course a very European view of the problem. Try looking at this issue from the point of view of someone who is living in the underdeveloped world. Is there really a great deal of moral difference between a Christian Fundamentalist who orders the bombing of houses because he believes that suspected terrorists are living there than a terrorist/freedom fighter who blows himself up in the company of the enemy. The only difference is in the number being killed. Bush’s policies have resulted in an estimated 100,000 civilians being killed in Iraq. Terrorists cannot compete with that sort of number. However, both do it with the conviction that they have the full support of God.

In the short term I would expect people to turn away from politics in disgust. Ignore them and perhaps they will go away. In the long term people will revolt against the virtual one-party state in the US . This is the nadir of democracy. Nader next time! (Derek McMillan)

Do you really think a left-wing revolution will take place in the United States in the near future? Personally, I think there is more chance of a right-wing military coup than that.

One of the factors which I think many Europeans (like myself) often forget is the isolationist nature of the current US majority. The war in Iraq is the kind of thing they can do, but look at how difficult it is becoming for even a hyperpower like the USA to sustain even a relatively small army in Iraq.

This makes it even more difficult for them to do another Iraq in Iran. Can you imagine any other military powers taking part in a joint invasion of Iran? And bear in mind that Iran has a population of 70 million (as against Iraq's 25 million), most of whom also live in cities. I'm sure you'd get a few token planes from the RAF and the Italian Air Force, but the British Army doesn't have the capacity to run expeditionary forces in two Middle Eastern countries at once.

I don't underestimate the US capacity to do harm to the rest of the planet, but let's just hope that they turn inwards and spend the next four years on harming themselves! It's a bit tough on the 50% who are part of Worldly America, rather than Godly American (Simon Schama's coinage yesterday), but those people are the only ones who can really help themselves.

I can certainly understand the dismay many of you have expressed at the re-election of "W". What I cannot understand is the loss of perspective this seems to have generated.

The US is not omnipotent - maybe "W" thinks so and apparently so do many of you - but we simply can't have it our own way. We are the country defeated by a bunch of peasant farmers in Vietnam. The same result may well occur in Iraq. I would have hoped that our leadership would have learned from our experience in Vietnam that "nation-building" without the support of the people in that nation is a fool's errand.

Similarly, although the US has a tremendous impact on the global environment, so does Europe. It will become increasingly obvious that environmental destruction is far more threatening to our survival than terrorism. Of course, it would have been far better for this to be universally recognized sooner - but it will be recognized. Mother Nature has a way of grabbing our attention. If one supposes that John Kerry would have been "better" for the environment (and I do suppose that) - still there is not much he could have done if the majority of people (and corporations) fail to recognize the problem.

Religious zealotry has always been with us. It has had negative impacts on humanity throughout history. Regardless of who is president, those people will push to change the social agenda - and they will have some success again without regard to who is president. I suspect that "W" is more interested in using them than being one of them - but it doesn't matter. People are afraid and in fear they do strange things.

Sorry, John, but I think you are making exaggerated statements. I was not surprised at the outcome of the election. Most of the people I talked with before the election were pro-Bush (and my state went for Kerry). I'm sure there was some minor fraud, but I seriously doubt Bush "stole" the election. Sadly, he didn't have to.

This is an important point. George Bush was himself an isolationist in 2000. He made a speech where he stated quite clearly that it was not America’s role to interfere in the way other countries governed themselves. This changed after 9/11. Bush now became influenced by those who wanted to export the American system of government to the Middle East. This was not done for ideological reasons. It was an economic decision. Bush and his advisers knew that the state of the economy would lead to his defeat in 2004. Some economists believed the crucial issue was the price of oil. A reduction in its price would stimulate the economy. This message was pushed in all 179 of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers. Control of Iraqi oil would lead to a fall in the price of oil.

This was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq (it had nothing at all to do with human rights, democracy or WMD). The great irony is that it has had the opposite impact. The price of oil has actually gone up since the invasion.



I agree that at the moment it is highly unlikely that Bush will order the invasion of Iran. It should already be clear to him that this will not achieve his desired objective (a fall in the price of oil). I think that there is a very good chance that Bush will invade Saudi Arabia. I say this because I fully expect a Muslim Fundamentalist revolution taking place in this country over the next couple of years. If this happens, the price of oil will increase rapidly. Bush will have no choice but to send in the troops.



True. The problem is that the White House now appears to be under the control of the Christian Fundamentalists. This is of course a contradiction in terms.

My dictionary defines a Christian as “a follower of a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ”. Whereas a fundamentalist is someone who believes in the “literal truth of the Bible”. I have always found the teachings of Jesus Christ appealing. If I was a believer in God I would be a member of a church that supported the actual teachings of Jesus Christ (the Quakers). However, I am totally opposed to all forms of fundamentalism. In fact, I think it is completely illogical. The Bible is made up of both the New and the Old Testaments. The message in these two parts of the Bible are often in direct conflict. Whereas Jesus Christ preached forgiveness and understanding, and a peaceful solution to problems, the Old Testament is often about revenge “an eye for an eye”.

Christian Fundamentalists reject the teachings of Jesus Christ and advocate those ideas found in the Old Testament (the very things that Jesus Christ was rebelling against). That is why they are in favour of pre-emptive war and capital punishment. It also explains their obsession with sex. Jesus Christ had very little to say about this subject. Although he did have some wise things to say about equality. That is why George Bernard Shaw said Jesus Christ was the world’s first socialist.

I'm sorry you were annoyed by my comments about exaggeration and lack of historical perspective, John, but I really do believe that your comparison with Mussolini and 1930s European fascism is going too far...

I abhor GWB's domestic agenda and look upon his foreign policy as, at best, misguided. I do not think, however, that this heralds the eventual triumph of some sort of Christian-Fascist totalitarianism, or of a right-wing military coup.

There are some purely mechanical/constitutional reasons for this. As you know, constitutional changes in the USA -- such as a federal ban on same-sex marriages -- require a 2/3rds majority vote in both houses of Congress and then the assent of 3/4ths of the state legislatures within a set time limit. That's why the ERA failed a few years ago. This makes radical changes in the constitution virtually, if not technically, impossible.

The point that has been made about the Supreme Court is a very good one. Changes made to the composition of the Court by a right-wing president and ratified by a right-wing senate will be with us for years. But again, this will probably not be a rapid change. New members can only be appointed when existing members either die, retire or are impeached. This doesn't happen all that often. And even conservative justices are, when all is said and done, first and foremost lawyers, and they tend to respect the rule of law and legalistic niceties. I doubt if even the most reactionary of supreme court justices would countenance a fascist dictatorship of a military coup.

Again, remember that 1/3rd of the senate is elected every two years. If the American people really see things going on in the court that they don't like, then they can change the composition of the senate at these elections.

I'm concerned, still, John, by your tendency to see Christian and Islamic fundamentalism as being equivalent. You mentioned the acts of terrorism against abortion clinics, and this is a good point. However, such actions can hardly be seen as representative of Christian fundamentalism. How many civilian hostages have Christian fundamentalist beheaded? Can anyone even conceive of some Christian group kidnapping, say, a pro-abortion doctor, sending videos of him in chains to the media, and then beheading him for TV cameras?

I agree that, at root, all types of fundamentalism share certain characteristics, but they simply aren't all "equivalent", and comments about skinning people alive or disembowling them in the name of Christ are simply irrelevant.

On the BBC yesterday, some "expert" or other said he saw the huge vote for Bush as being a reaction against the perceived secularization of society. He observed that an immense majority of voters declared themselves "believers" of some sort or another (evangelicans, catholics, jews, moslems, etc) and yet, he said, they had seen an increasing tendency in America to belittle the spiritual aspect of public life. Little things like insisting that public schools couldn't display "belenes" (traditional models of nativity scenes) even though these are pretty basic cultural symbols for the growing hispanic community, the city council who had to take down the menorah in the square in front of the town hall at hannukah in case it offended non-jews, seemed to indicate an increasing secular "fundamentalism" which was denying what many of these voters saw as a basic foundation stone of society.

Now, I know that as a non-believer yourself, you might feel uncomfortable with this sort of view, but, according to the BBC's "expert", it seemed to influence people in the USA when they came to cast their votes. And, as you yourself observed, "The problem with giving people freedom is that they might use that freedom to do things they might not like. "

John, I respect your views, and I'm sorry and surprised that you feel offended by what I said. To give offence was the last thing on my mind. I apologize of th way I expressed myself was in some way inappropriate.

In the end, looking into the future is a most uncertain venture. You could be right to see dire consequences in GWB's re-election. I could be right in thinking that the system is somehow "self-righting". OK. I retire in 10 years time. If you're right and the USA has fallen to a Christian-fascist dicatorship or a military coup, I'll buy you dinner in Andalucia in 2014. I'll even spring for the Easyjet return fare....

If you're right and the USA has fallen to a Christian-fascist dictatorship or a military coup, I'll buy you dinner in Andalucia in 2014. I'll even spring for the Easyjet return fare.... (Mike Tribe).

I never suggested that there would be a Christian-fascist dictatorship or a military coup. There is as much chance of that as a communist revolution.

I'm sorry you were annoyed by my comments about exaggeration and lack of historical perspective, John, but I really do believe that your comparison with Mussolini and 1930s European fascism is going too far. (Mike Tribe)

I am afraid you have completely misunderstood what I said. Here it is again: “I believe the election of Bush is as significant as the decision by King Victor Emmanuel III in 1922 to appoint Benito Mussolini as leader of Italy. Mussolini made it possible for Franco and Hitler to gain power. However, I doubt if Bush will have this impact on the world. His views are unlikely to have any influence on important political leaders outside the UK and Italy. In fact, Bush’s victory is likely to make it more difficult for his supporters in Europe.”

Note I used the word significant. I was in no way suggesting that Bush is a fascist. Nor did I say he would resort to a military coup at the end of his current term. Bush is a Christian Fundamentalist/Neo Conservative. This is very different from fascism. We need to be aware of what we are fighting in order to defeat it.

I'm concerned, still, John, by your tendency to see Christian and Islamic fundamentalism as being equivalent. You mentioned the acts of terrorism against abortion clinics, and this is a good point. However, such actions can hardly be seen as representative of Christian fundamentalism. How many civilian hostages have Christian fundamentalist beheaded? Can anyone even conceive of some Christian group kidnapping, say, a pro-abortion doctor, sending videos of him in chains to the media, and then beheading him for TV cameras? (Mike Tribe)

I have addressed this point earlier. This is of course a very European view of the problem. Try looking at this issue from the point of view of someone who is living in the underdeveloped world. Is there really a great deal of moral difference between a Christian Fundamentalist who orders the bombing of houses because he believes that suspected terrorists are living there than a terrorist/freedom fighter who blows himself up in the company of the enemy. The only difference is in the number being killed. Bush’s policies have resulted in an estimated 100,000 civilians being killed in Iraq. Terrorists cannot compete with that sort of number. However, both do it with the conviction that they have God on their side.

On the BBC yesterday, some "expert" or other said he saw the huge vote for Bush as being a reaction against the perceived secularization of society. He observed that an immense majority of voters declared themselves "believers" of some sort or another (evangelicans, catholics, jews, moslems, etc) and yet, he said, they had seen an increasing tendency in America to belittle the spiritual aspect of public life... Now, I know that as a non-believer yourself, you might feel uncomfortable with this sort of view, but, according to the BBC's "expert", it seemed to influence people in the USA when they came to cast their votes. And, as you yourself observed, "The problem with giving people freedom is that they might use that freedom to do things they might not like. " (Mike Tribe)

I agree with the BBC reporter. I believe there was some fiddling going on but it is quite clear that more people voted for George Bush than John Kerry. It is also true that Christian Fundamentalism was the main reason people voted for Bush. An interesting survey was carried out as people left the polling booths. They were asked what single factor influenced the way they voted. Some voters cited terrorism, Iraq War or the state of the American economy, but the greatest number picked “moral values”. In other words, opposition to sex before marriage, abortion, gay marriage, etc. It also meant that they liked Bush’s moral views on capital punishment, gun ownership and pre-emptive war. Over 80% of all Christian Fundamentalists voted for Bush. More importantly, a very high percentage of this group actually voted. Unlike the poor who have been the main sufferers of Bush's policies.

I accept this is the price you pay for democracy. We have a similar problem in the UK. The only way the problem should be solved is through the ballot box.

I expect Bush to face several insurmountable problems over the next four years. The budget deficit will continue to increase (is that not a moral issue?). Higher oil prices (as a result of his failed policy in the Middle East) will result in higher unemployment and possibly a world recession.

Bush will get sucked deeper into the politics of the Middle East. The attack on Falluja will probably result in uprisings all over Iraq. It is likely to increase the chances of a Muslim Fundamentalist revolution in Saudi Arabia. This will force Bush to send in the troops. He will also have to introduce the draft (Blair will not be able to help him out over that one).

The question is: will the American elect another Republican Christian Fundamentalist in 2008? Well that depends who the Democrats chose as their candidate. If they decide on Hillary Rodham Clinton, than the answer is probably yes. I will explain this on another thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2149

[quote=Graham Davies,Nov 4 2004, 05:29 PM]
As Mike says, “American presidents reign for only four years - eight if they are re-elected - and then they go.”


Are you sure they go? It is said, Jeff Bush will be next Republican candidate. It looks to me as the beginning of a dynasty. In addition, it is the second time with suspicious manipulations in elections. Americans aren't too far of becoming a suspicious democracy as John said. Anyway, to handle a world empire is very difficult under democratic premises

I whole-heartedly agree with Mike Tribe's and Mike Toliver's statements. The re-election of George Bush did not surprise me at all and even though I am worried of what might happen in the following four years I have to accept that the majority of the American people have elected their president and obviously they share most of his ideals and convictions. The left, the liberals, the Democratic Party obviously have not managed to present their ideas and programmes convincingly enough for the people to follow them.

Talking about the war in Iraq what options would John Kerry have had: withdraw and leave a completely destabilised country to its own devices waiting till the various ethnic and religious groups and factions - all fundamentalists in their own ways- have killed each other off - a Middle East Jugoslavia? Ho credibel was the Democratic stance against the war after the party had said "yes" in Congress when Bush asked them?

All the questions, John, you asked in one of your postings (environment etc) - how about asking our own governments and asking the European institutions.

I, too, think that the USA is the only superpower left but she is not the only powerful nation on the world and if the Europian Union managed to speak with one voice it would be able to be some counterweight to balance and control the American ally.

Four more years of excessive spending.

A weaker dollar, a delayed economic growth in Europe because of that. (from an European point of view!)

And this is just one of the things that came up in thoughts today.
It would be very interesting to know what American collegues think of 4 more years!

A very interesting topic!!

I am not an optimist concerning Mr. Bush Presidency for the next 4 years. The point is that USA got a special declaration concerning my country just to continue our isolation in Europe and world (but who gave them such a right to be a world judge?????) but the most dangerous thing is that USA top officials are talking about the using all possible actions and activities like in Iraq to teach our top officils how to live and build democracy. So even after the collapse of the USSR our world will be divided we and they and now our people are looking for Russia just to be sure that there exist someone who could defend us. When we were living in two big "camps" I was more secure that now when only one superpower exists and the world should follow the rules of it.

Our life is so short and I guess that I never will live without all these troubles how to educate and raise my children just to be peaceful and optimistic .......

But I am finishing my remarks with peace and love to all people who are waiting, fighting for peace and tolerance and dreaming for the better future (like I was building and waiting for communism in my country....)

IN the long line of historical figures who have emerged as GREAT leaders of the U.S.A. - George W. Bush's "2000-2004 dog-and-pony show" has NOT shown him to be a "great leader!" His subsequent re-election (!?) will hopefully, after this NEXT four years, recede into the annals of history, much the same as a pimple on one's backside will "eventually heal"...and, again, hopefully, this healing will not leave too large OR irreparable scars on the "behind" of World and American history.

As I see it, "We, the American People," need to institute a complete overhaul of our political processes and the methods by which the "government" is MORE accountable TO "THE PEOPLE." OUR POCKETS are the ones being picked in order to support "causes" which have been proven CLEARLY to DIVIDE us, rather than to cause us to stand UNITED...(go figger!)

IF nothing ELSE was proved over the past two years of CAMPAIGNING (yes, folks, it truly was TWO years, not merely ONE "official" year, as in times past...!) and the past three years of this globally unpopular "war on terror," these things have NOW been proven to be necessary - AND, I suggest that we ACT, while the pain is still fresh in the minds of everyone who was disappointed and/or DISGUSTED by the (ahem!) Presidential Election, we need to institute measures, immediately - if not sooner - to:

[1]Eliminate the "electoral college" and make "one person = one vote" a reality. Believe it or not, folks, we DO have the technology...we even have printing presses, and pens, and pencils!

[2]Completely REFORM the currently bastardized "system of checks and balances" --TAKE IT BACK to the original meaning that the Founding Father's had in mind when they devised and instituted the concept -- "The Executive is separate from the Legislative, is separate from the Judicial." (jeez, does NO ONE remember High School Civics, Government or American History class?) in order to eliminate the "in-bed-togetherness" currently so rampant among the three branches of government.

[3]We also need to run the government as a BUSINESS, with TRANSPARENCY, strict ACCOUNTABILITY, and SEVERE PENALTIES instituted and enforced upon anyone in any position of our Government who violates any Fiscal, Ethical, and Administrative boundaries in their official capacity. YOU DON'T WRITE THE CHECKS IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY IN YOUR ACCOUNT!!! If that axiom holds true for individuals and for businesses, should it not apply MORE SO to the collective "running of this country?"

These three items would be ENOUGH to for us accomplish, even as a "starting point," and they would be enough to make effective, long-term changes, in and of themselves, it seems to me.

I did NOT vote for "g-bubba" EITHER TIME - in my opinion, he's a mealy-mouthed, smarmy, smirking, little pip-squeak whose perception of his "abilities" and "powers" are so self-aggrandized that he cannot see himself for what he REALLY is: ineffectual, NON-diplomatic, war-mongering, and "drunk-on-his-own-power, and is only in his position by "virtue (!?)" of pandering to special interest groups, lobbies and personal friends in BIG BUSINESS - via his previous business experience (consider, please, that they went bankrupt!), AND through his FATHER'S political influence with the same businesses and lobbies.

He WAS NOT elected this time by popular vote (he won via the "electoral college" vote); nor did he win, as with the first time he was elected (which SHOULD have been the last!), by rigging an election in his brother's State of Florida and subsequent appointment by the Supreme Court.

It is my hope that the average person in any country OTHER than the US, will realize that our system of government has gotten way out of hand, as evidenced by these past four years under the policies of the megalomaniacal "g-bubba."

It is also my hope that after the NEXT four years are over, we can go back to being friends; so IN ADVANCE, I'll say "I'm sorry" on behalf of our country, if you WON'T say "I told ya so!" - the average American Citizen did NOT have any control over these past four years, and I can well guarantee, that short of a SECOND American Revolution, we, the people, will have no control over the next four years, either.

Again, those who do not LEARN from history are condemned to repeat it...REAP, eat it....enjoy!

Nico asks what his American colleagues think of the next four years. I'm not good at predicting the future, but based on what we saw for the last four years, I think it's safe to say that not much will change. We still have a president that shoots from the hip (and the lip!), who is most interested in helping out the rich (as if they needed help) and who is convinced that it's his way or the highway. The only question I have is if things will go to hell in a hand-basket fast enough to show the people who voted for Bush what a huge mistake they made. If that is the case (and I think it might be), then the 2008 election will be "anything but a Bush (Republican?)". I personally hope a third party might rise up and challenge the two (one?) party system. John Anderson had an interesting editorial in the New York Times just before the election that promised just that. I don't hold out great hope for that, but I'd sure like to see it.

In the nature of things if you have 1000 newly registered voters in a year, somehting like 100 of them will move house and about 10 will die. It is therefore possible for a Republican goon to stand up with a bundle of envelopes which "prove" voter fraud because they are marked "dead" or "moved away". They can then use this as an excuse for Republican goons to harrass black voters at every polling station. This may not have determined the outcome of the election of course but it is still disgraceful. Yes there were people in Ohio who were too frightened to vote.

This does not have to be the nadir of democracy.
Nader next time.
(OK last time I make that pun...promise)

I took the bus out from California on the night before the election to canvas the Las Vegas area and help people get to the polls. Clark County was the only county in Nevada to go for Kerry, but it was too little, too late. I spent the evening at Senator Harry Reid's election party at the Rio Hotel, watching the election results. I remain skeptical about some of the votes...a number of states started out for Kerry but rapidly shifted towards Bush as the evening wore on and it looked like Kerry was gonna win. This is the exact opposite of the usual trend, as absentee votes, counted first, are traditionally Republican. Nevertheless, Kerry was helpless to argue against the possible voter fraud without embarrassing his country and provoking violence. He's still a Senator and needs to at least pretend our system works. Consequently, Bush won and Democracy lost. It would sure be interesting to see how many minority votes were thrown out in Ohio due to double-punching or other supposed technical infractions. The exit polls apparently showed that Kerry won in that all-important state and yet we'll probably never know the truth.

That aside, what is really scary is that the newspapers and spin doctors are trying to portray Bush's victory as a MANDATE. This is the biggest bunch of b.s. I have ever heard. The man had more votes cast against him than any incumbent in history and yet they are trying to sell us that his policies are the will of the American people. And this despite, as John has pointed out, those who voted for him did not defend his policies, and quite often preferred Kerry's policies on Social Security and health care; they voted for W instead because he shared their values, i.e. he's a born-again Christian who doesn't read much, doesn't travel much, likes his guns, and fears homosexuals. I'm simplifying a bit but not much. The Bush campaign was successful in getting apolitical Christians to vote en masse against their own interests through the use of Christian organizations disseminating fear and hate propaganda. I received numerous e-mails from relatives in the mid-west which sought to alert me to the horrible facts that John Kerry (a life-long Catholic who regularly attends mass) was out to ban religion, was friends with JANE FONDA, was in the North Vietnam Hall of Fame, was a secret Communist, was pro-homosexual, was the most liberal Senator in America, wanted to repeal the second amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, and had faked his war medals. And, oh yeah, his wife has a potty mouth and just may have murdered her first husband, a Republican, for his loot. Yesterday, I found on the ground here in California a Colorado voting guide put out by the Christian Coalition, which listed the various candidates and their position on "Christian" issues. Under the issue of "Teaching Homosexuality to School Children" all the Republican candidates were listed as having said they were opposed, while all the Democratic candidates were listed as having "Refused to Respond." OOOHHH...they must be hiding something.... It was this kind of idiocy that decided the election or at least made it close enough for Bush to steal.

The real precedent in this election wasn't that people voted for the wrong guy, it's that they KNOWINGLY voted for the wrong guy. The Presidency has grown to be of such status that a large percentage of Americans will vote for the guy they consider to be the most like them even if he's an obvious incompetent. It's an us against them mentality that feeds off the insecurities of white males from the south who know that their accents are looked down upon by the cultured elite of Boston, New York, and Los Angeles, and still think the South got screwed in the Civil War. In this climate it is doubtful that even John Kennedy would have been able to beat Bush. While the international community may look at the election as a referendum on Bush's war on terror, the election itself was not about that at all, as those most likely to be a victim of terror, i.e. those in the big cities, voted overwhelmingly for Kerry (58-40 in New York state and 90-10 in D.C.). To paraphrase Mao and Nixon, "The real war is in ourselves." Sadly, the lesson to be learned from this election may be that Democrats will have to nominate Southerners in years to come to even stand a chance.

The allegations against Bush and those who support him do not reflect the facts To equate Christians with Muslim fudamentalists who are spreading hate around the world is outrageous. Terrorism, hate, antisemitism threatens Europeans as much as Americans and Canadians. There is no appeasement with terrorism...and that needs to be the focus, not Bush bashing. Look at all the concessins and appeasement that Europeans made prior to World War II. How many thousands of young people lost their lives, beccause the world did not stand up when it could have done some good.

You ask: What will the new Bush administration bring to America in these next four years? The answer is: More of the same, much intensified. The movers are men typical of Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, the drivers of the “Movement.” They are business oriented but in a manner Texas style—not traditional. They come on the world scene surveying its assets as their own to be manipulated and utilized under their control. Government is their instrument. Forget Bush; he is the functionary who signs the papers and poses for pictures.

However much they speak of “order,” and their abhorrence of “chaos,” the latter is the principal method for getting their way.

While they see their way as new and unique, it is a variation on ancient Empire building. They are merely filling in the day to day operations with immense personal satisfaction of the feel of immense power in their hands.

Since the 1930s America has had some social programs on its mind—Security in old age and health care for all as well as some control of poverty. The Cheney/Rove group has dismantled that movement by a method of impoverishing the government with war, gifts to the most wealthy and to business. Jack Ragsdale San Francisco

Why is the Deficit off the voters' Radar?
What happened to the Business Model of State?
This is truly awful.
Reagan, nitwit and "big picture" guy waited for the Soviets to come to him,
and they did...but he largely refrained from instigating
War...in Nicaragua or anywhere else larger than the mythical liliput, Grenada.

This is a whole different bag....

Kerry did pretty well. he held the Gore states. No major gaffes. Bush took the rural and suburban counties. the November 4th New York Times had blue and red counties. Memphis, Atlanta, New orleans, were southern blue cities. Bush won some cities, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Phoenix, but Kerry took El Paso Brownsville and Las Vegas. We have a replay of 2000 but with shades of 1860... its really Lincoln verson Breckinridge/DOuglas, the race card has been played.

The democrats need to win a southern state next time. Gore couldn't carry Tennessee. Edwards couldn't carry North Carolina. John Rockefeller should have pumped 10 million into West Virginia. West Virginia went for Mondale, Dukakis and McGovern, but turned RED. Ohio turned Red, the southern rural "thing" they have down in West Virginia and Indiana pincered in Ohio.

Of course the Bush family had industrial interests in Ohio , back before the Union Pacific and Brown Bros. Harriman days...

The Well Informed Party was defeated by the Less Well Informed. States went for Bush by inverse of SAT scores. Authority, fear and security trumped "liberalism" and civil rights...

Rove put the gay marriage bans on state ballots to help get out the vote and establish linkage.

Late night TV made it clear evangelicals were divinely and en masse BUSH voters

Deficits are still off the radar, and the war spending, and the economy.

Shanet

There have been much talk about US exceptionalism. It is more and more evident that there is a growing gap between a majority of US public and most of the European public opinion. These are the main differences:

Religion. Not only Christian fundamentalism, but a general opinion that makes impossible for any politician to confess himself as a atheist or not religious.

Patriotism. Being the only hyperpower, being an immigrants country... the result is a nationalism difficult to find in Western Europe as a general feeling

Individualism. Most of the American public (including working classes!) are suspicious of any welfare policy that involves more taxes.

Guns and death penalty. More that 240 million weapons around the country.
About death penalty, just read what Nicholas Kristof op-ed columnist in the New York Times wrote yesterday:

Obscene, disgusting for most of the European public opinion.

Anyway, if we want to prevent US administration to implement dangerous policies and help American liberal opinion, we cannot exaggerate and affirm statements that only favor Bush and his friends:

United States is a democracy. No matter how chaotic or imperfect is its voting system (Are we going to call Kennedy victory in 1960 into question?)

Bush is not a smirking dumb. The fact that we cannot understand the success of Rove's tactics to mobilise the Christian fundamentalist voters must not lead us to elaborate a caricature of Bush and his voters. At least, if we want to understand US reality and help liberal Americans to win in the next election.

Once we have realised that Bush has a strong support for his unilateral foreign policy, the best thing we can do is to foster European integration. It is evident that US needs a certain counterweight. Europeans are not US foes, we are friends but friends that strongly disagree with some American administration policies.

A good example is all the current chitchat on "moral values". Aren't European MPs moved by "moral values" when they forced Durao Barroso to get rid of Mr. Butiglione? Liberal and left-wing people, we also have "moral values".

Here are the percentages of the different groups who voted for Bush: Evangelical/Born Again (78), Protestant (59), Catholic (52), Jewish (25), Gun Ownership (63), Homosexuals (23), Trade Union Members (38), Married With Children (59), More than $200k (62), Less than $50k (43), White (58), Black (11), Men (55) and Women (48).

It is no coincidence that Bush did so well with the religious groups (except Jews who have a long record of holding liberal political views). People were asked: “What was the most important issue to you when voting?” as they left the polling booth. This was the result: Moral Values (22), Economy (20), Terrorism (19), Iraq (15), Healthcare (8), Taxes (5) and Education (4).

Other factors that need to be taken into consideration include the numbers who bothered to vote. A high percentage of the Evangelical/Born Again Christians decided to cast their vote (20.7m for Bush). Whereas other groups that overwhelmingly supported Kerry (Blacks and those living in poverty) had low turnout rates. This was especially true in the Deep South. Despite having a lot of blacks and people living in poverty, every state was won by Bush. The reason for this is the turnout rate.

It is highly unlikely that Christian groups will lose their faith during the next four years. In the past these groups abstained in large numbers (Bush did not have much of an impact on this in 2000).

To win in 2008 the Democrats have to find someone who is appealing to those Christians in the Deep South. If they don’t do that, they will be beaten by the Republican candidate who will definitely be chosen to represent these views.

Below is an email I received concerning Kerry (I did not see it before the election). There is NO doubt that Kerry's actions as a Naval Officer in Viet Nam were close to being outright treason. The INTERNET was obviously a factor in getting the truth out about Kerry as he was not as he was presented on the evening news. Things such as going hunting for geese a few days before the election were meant to hide his leftist leanings, but what they actually did was expose him as the fake that he has always been.

It took very little research to find out that Kerry was not a reasonable alternative to G.W. Bush.

On the deficit that Bush has run up, the same things were said about Reagan, who is now to go down in history as one of the greatest American Presidents. The deficit from the 80's was forgotten as the economy expanded. We seem to be on the front end of another economic expansion after the economic downturn seen at the end of the Clinton administration and the negative impact of 9-11.

Concerning Clinton, there are storys afloat now of his covering up terrorism by IRAQ in the United States during his administration. Although, the big MSM (main stream media) in the USA won't touch any of these stories, it doesn't look good for Clinton who obviously lied about this too.

Think of the implications of this story in history. Clinton, to get re-elected surpressed terrorism stories in the US for polictical reasons.

Bill Clinton never met a lie he wouldn't tell.

Kerry surrounded himself with Clinton people from the 90's.

Bill


Subject: THE JIMMY CARTER LEGACY CONTINUES

Sean,

I was on active duty as a U.S. Navy lawyer when all of this was going on some 25 to 30 years ago, and so was Mark F. Sullivan, who at all relevant times was the personal lawyer to J. William Middendorf, then the Secretary of the Navy. We remember.

We are trying to break this absolutely true story nationwide, i.e., Fox News, C-Span, and hopefully all the major networks. We are positive that John Kerry was one of those dishonorably dismissed from the Navy for collaborating with the Viet Cong, after he was released from active duty but still in the Navy, and for a totally unauthorized trip to Hanoi. He later got an "honorable" separation in 1978, some 12 years after joining the Navy, under President Carter's "Amnesty Program" for draft dodgers, deserters, and other malcontents who fled to Canada and Holland, among other places, to avoid military service to our country.

This is why he has refused, and continues to refuse, to release all of his Navy records: they reflect that he was Dishonorably Dismissed from the United States Naval Service. If they do not (which they do), he would have released them to the public. Again, he has not done so, because he well knows that the truth would kill his challenge to President Bush. If you would like to talk with me, I may be reached at
telephone number (925) 964-0943 in Danville, California, or at DLNelsonSF@msn.com

Sincerely,

DONALD L. NELSON
CAPT, JAGC, USNR (Ret.)

John I totally agree with the above, but the Republicans play so dirty. They lie. So no matter who the Dems put up there will be a very expensive smear campaign filled with hate and lies. In this election they went after Kerry on the very issue where he was strong and Bush was weak: his war record. The swift boat lies dominated the cable news stations night after night, immediately after the Democratic convention. How do people fight against a machine so powerful that they can employ countless lies to be elected, while fooling the masses into believing that they are in fact the "moral" group?

I really thought people would see through this.

I am also receiving emails containing news stories about suspected fraud in Fla and Ohio. So, I wonder if we will ever know.

Dawn

Picking up the thread of the isolation of the USA, I always find that when I go to the USA (and I visit the USA quite often) that I lose touch very quickly with what is going on in the rest of the world. I tune in to CNN’s “international” news, only to find that 11 out of 12 news items focus on the USA and one on Canada. Only major disasters in Europe or elsewhere in the world hit the headlines.

Bill Bryson (who is an American) sums up the situation in an article entitled "Those boring foreigners" in his collection "Notes from a big country". Bill Bryson writes:

"Julian Barnes, in a line I intend to make my own when the moment is right, once observed that any foreigner visiting the US can perform an easy magic trick: 'Buy a newspaper and see your own country disappear'. Actually, you don't need to read a newspaper. You can read a magazine or watch TV or just talk to people."

I don't know that the US is any more isolationist than other countries. When I was in London, the Times contained mostly news about England. When I was in Canada, again most of the news was Canadian. And why wouldn't it be? People are most interested in what is happening in their immediate vicinity, so if you want to sell newspapers you'd better write about "local" news.

Kerry was indeed a poor option. I believe a different candidate could have defeated Bush. I voted for Nader because I couldn't stand either Kerry or Bush. It was clear (to me) that Kerry was a typical politician who's main interest was himself. I also believe he lied about his war time service. His service in Vietnam was not "his strength" - it was a detriment. Now if he'd been John McCain or someone like that, it could have been a strength.

Again, Bush did not "steal" the election. The democrats lost it.

I have spent time in a large number of countries but the United States was clearly the most parochial. Only France comes close to matching the American approach. There have been a large number of surveys carries out that shows that the average American has little understanding of what goes on outside its own country.

Take a look at Guardian online to see how a serious newspaper in the UK reports on the world. The UK is not the best at reporting on world news. I have found that countries like Sweden and Denmark are the best for this international approach.

Sorry it's taken so long to add this comment - I've been busy lately.

This may very well be 'secular fundamentalism', but it was the type of secularism on which the USA was based. Just as the Electoral College mechanism was put there to prevent the emergence of an 'elected monarch', the separation of church and state was intended to prevent public affairs being infected with religion, as they had been so often in Europe in the centuries preceding the writing of the US Constitution.

From where I'm sitting, it looks as though the true heirs to the Founding Fathers are turning out to be those very Europeans the Founding Fathers were trying to break away from, whilst the country they founded is looking more and more like a 17th century European power (perhaps a Holy American Empire?!).

Just a couple of quick comments:

1. Yes, of course the news coverage in the UK focuses mainly on Britain, but if you read any "quality" newspaper or watch the TV news you'll find that international events are very well covered. How many Americans own a passport? I've heard various figures quoted, from 10% to 20%. Not that owning a passport necessarily makes you better informed about world affairs - v. the number of Brits who holiday each year in Spain but who have little exposure to Spanish culture in the purpose-built English-speaking holiday resorts. I have, however, been frequently surprised while travelling in the US to find that many people I have met have never travelled outside their own state, let alone travelling abroad.

2. I enjoy the religious diversity in the UK. Our neighbours (Hindus) have just celebrated Guy Fawkes night (5 Nov) with a firework display, and they will be celebrating Diwali (12 Nov) with another firework display. They also celebrate Christmas and New Year. We are usually invited to Diwali parties in the area where I live. It's great that we can all join in with one another's festivals. It makes life far less boring!

I certainly don't have extensive international experience - I can't afford it. However, my limited contact with "average" people from other countries doesn't lead me to believe they're terribly different from the average American. Similarly, reading "quality" US newspapers would produce the same result as reading "quality" British newspapers. And it's not that hard to do with most of them being on the Internet now.

I guess another way of making my point (that the US is not particularly isolationist) is - how many (insert country name here) read and care about international issues? I contend the vast majority of the world's population is most concerned with local issues and is relatively uninformed regarding international issues. Academics are not "typical" in this regard.

In fact, one could make a case for the US being LESS isolationist. Why else would "we" feel it's OK to interfere in the governments of other sovereign nations?

Mike asks:


At the risk of being accused of being flippant, we Brits take an avid interest in World Cup soccer and rugby, and many Brits can name the leading European soccer teams and players.

But, yes, Mike is right. Local issues play the predominant role in politics.

On the other hand, why do I always feel that I have lost touch with the rest of the world after 2-3 weeks in the USA (or Canada, where I have relatives)?

I guess the point I am making is that travel broadens the mind: v. the case of G.W.B. before he became President. When I first visited Northern Ireland (where my wife was born) I was shocked by its religious fundamentalism and prejudices - it's still dreadfully racist. I recall being asked by someone on my first visit: "What do you think about Northern Ireland?" I replied "I think you need to travel a bit more." (I was just 23 years of age at the time.) In retrospect, I don't know how I avoided a dig on the jaw.

I live now in one of the most internationalist of countries, namely Sweden. However, I first really saw the impact the EU has had on my native country when we lived in London at the end of the 1980s. Our neighbour, Sean, was an electrician, and a typical Londoner, the kind of person who, a generation previously, would have made a virtue of never even having left the south-east of England.

Sean had already worked in half-a-dozen European countries (including Sweden), and had lots of opinions about German coffee, Italian bacon, Swedish TV, etc, based on personal experience.

So, I would say that people in the USA are more parochial in general than people in other western countries. The north Americans I meet here in Europe are nearly always amazed at how *small* Europe is (it takes around 15 hours to take the train from where I live to Paris). Think about one-and-half Californias (to use another of Julian Barnes' images) with 450 million people living in it. I'm sure that one of the major reasons we're so against Bush's adventurism and religious fanaticism is that we have close personal memories of where they lead … We sympathised with 9/11, but that sort of destruction was visited on large parts of a large proportion of the cities in Europe within living memory, so it wasn't such of a shock to us.

One of the differences between a European visiting lots of European countries and an American visiting lots of US states is that you can't speak the same language everywhere and expect to be understood. This means that we are forced to acknowledge diversity, whether we like it or not.

One of the frightening things about US forces abroad is their general assumption that everyone they meet is motivated by the same things that motivate Americans (and, indeed, secretly wish that they were Americans). You can see this tendency in the statements from Marines about what's going to happen in Falluja, right now. The Marines seem to think that when they roll into the middle of the city and start patrolling, then the grateful populace will thank them for getting rid of the 'terrorists' and then set about constructing US-style lives for themselves. What if the population see the 'terrorists' as being something more like the French Resistance?

David is certainly right about the expectations of most soldiers in foreign wars. After all, one relies on one's own experience in new situations. I don't know that I was exactly shocked to learn that the Vietnamese peasants regarded us as the invaders and the enemy, and the VC (if not the NVA) as their protectors, but it certainly changed my opinion about the morality of the Vietnam War. I learned that little lesson very early in my tour, and spent the rest of my tour doing my best to stay alive without surrendering my soul. Perhaps my fellow Marines will learn the same lesson in Falluja - which would be bad news for Mr. Bush.

Another thing - probably everyone would agree that travel is a good thing and broadens one's perspective. The question is, who can afford it? I visited my father in a distant state, and that visit put us in debt from which it will take a year or more to recover. I probably make more than the average American in my job. How do you expect the average American to get any overseas travel?

The film "The Three Kings" was a bit of a pot-boiler, but it had what I thought was some very significant scenes near the beginning when the three criminal US soldiers on the look out for loot rolled into an Iraqi town just across the border, which had been deserted by the Iraqi authorities.

The first thing they see is a bloke being beaten up by two other men. The 'victim' was in plain clothes, whilst the attackers were in unmarked green uniforms. The Americans promptly rescue the victim and drive away the attackers … only to find later on that the victim was a Baathist, being attacked by Shiite resistance fighters, who'd just been challenged to rise up against Sadaam Hussein by the US President.

Then they find a bunker, and down it there's a personable young man in civilian clothes, who speaks excellent English and likes the same kind of music they do. Later on, when this bloke has captured one of the Americans, he begins torturing him. The others later free their comrade and ask his torturer who taught him to torture like that. 'You did' is the reply …

I've done two spells of working in the Gulf (the first time as an instructor in military English for the Kuwaiti Army) and this really rings true. Problem is, if a civilian like me has got insights like this from a little bit of time spent in the region + a popular film, why didn't the Pentagon's advisers, with their vastly superior resources, prepare their troops better?

Some of the reasons must be down to personal factors … but there've got to be some systemic faults here too. I find the very different behaviour of French troops engaged in colonial wars (like the one in Ivory Coast right now) interesting. There they are with a couple of hundred troops amidst hundreds of thousands of armed civilians who could, presumably, obliterate them … and yet the French have generally achieved their military aims when they've intervened in such situations. Since the US Armed Forces are much better equipped than the French, surely the success-failure axis should lean the other way?

Yes the French certainly had much greater success in Vietnam (sorry, couldn't resist...).

In the first Gulf War, I remember listening to an Arab-American woman decrying the demonization of Arabs in the media. My wife and I were talking about this and she said "What do you expect? If you send soldiers into a region where they're going to have to kill people, you have to make the "enemy" appear less than human."

In Vietnam, we were discouraged from any contact with the peasants (and by that time - 1968 - it was in our best interest to keep our distance because the peasants could well kill us). Interestingly, the US soldiers who look back on Vietnam with the greatest pride are those few soldiers (special forces, Marine CAP's) who lived and worked with the peasants.

I just read a story in the Chicago Tribune about the Marines moving into Falluja with Iraqi commandos - and the Marines were relying heavily on the Iraqis to tell friend from foe. I don't think it's as easy as David would have us think. It may well be that the powers that be have made a conscious decision to reduce understanding between US forces and Iraqis - if so, it would be the same story I've seen more times than I care to remember - but still, in guerilla warfare it is often impossible to tell who you can trust - which is why guerilla warfare is so effective.

That was then … I was thinking about the more recent French colonial interventions in Chad and from Djibouti, for example.



I expressed myself wrongly if I left the impression that I think that such interventions are easy. I wouldn't like to be a French soldier relying on air-power and armoured personnel carriers to save me from a crowd which was hundreds of times bigger than my 'crowd'.

The impression I've received (partly from working with peace enforcers from the Swedish Army too) is that US soldiers enter into such situations with a much greater load of illusions than the more cynical French. One of the paradoxes of the intervention in Bosnia was that one of the most effective forces was NordBat (Danes, Norwegians and Swedes). When they were shelled by the Serbians, they retaliated immediately - mostly because the political stuff had been worked out in advance. The Serbians soon learned to leave them alone. Other units, however, would find themselves having to try to explain their situation to the politicos back home before they had permission to shoot back … with the result that by the time they received it, there weren't any targets any more.

A lot of my contacts in the Technical Services of the Swedish Army have been offered big bucks to work with the Americans in Iraq, but the response is an automatic refusal. Even the lower-ranks in the Swedish Army know enough about the world to know that what makes the job of the Americans impossible is that they shouldn't even be trying to do it at all.