Big events will shake Bush win

What We Think

Big events will shake Bush win

There is deep disappointment in Britain and worldwide at the victory of
Bush in the US elections. This, however, does not justify drawing
pessimistic conclusions for the future or insulting the US people, as did
the Daily Mirror: "How can 59 million people be dumb enough to vote
for this?"

Similar conclusions were drawn about the elections in Britain in 1992
when John Major unexpectedly crept back to power, despite the previous
forcible eviction of Thatcher from office and the defeat of the hated poll
tax. Six months after Major’s re-election came ‘Black Wednesday’ and
the collapse of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) which sealed
the fate of the Tories, from which they have never recovered.

US President Nixon also managed a second term but was then thrown out
because of the Watergate conspiracy and the mass revolt of the people of
America against his lying, corrupt government. Similarly, Lyndon Johnson
was compelled by the revolt against the Vietnam War to resign
unceremoniously before he could start his ‘second term’.

History never repeats itself in exactly the same way but what these
examples demonstrate are that elections, as the socialist has explained
many times, reflect the mood at one moment in time and not fixed views set
in concrete. These views can be shaken by big events.

Polarised

The first Bush term polarised US society to a greater extent than at
any time for 30 years. This was reflected in the turnout which was up 8
per cent compared to 2000, the highest since the 1960s; 51% voted for Bush
and 48% for Kerry. But this is not the complete picture; Greg Palast the
US investigative journalist, has shown that an estimated two million votes
for Kerry were ruled out by Republican-influenced officials. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that, despite the horrors of Iraq and the worst economic
record of any president since Hoover in the 1930s, Bush has been returned
to power.

Millions, particularly young people and 88 per cent of Afro-Americans,
voted for Kerry. Their votes were, however, cancelled out by millions of
others and crucially by the millions of Christian evangelicals who did not
vote in the last election and identified Bush as the upholder of
traditional American ‘values’. Mobilised by the 300,000 ‘shock
troops’ of Bush’s ‘grey eminence’, Karl Rove, they responded to
the campaign to uphold ‘traditional values’ and some of them to the
vile campaign against a woman’s right to choose, against gay rights and
stem cell research.

Vicious

The vicious, almost medieval, rant of this section of the Republican
Party was summed up by Senator Tom Coburn, who promised on election day to
"ban abortion and execute any doctors who carried them out".
[Daily Mirror] This has posed the question: how, in an advanced industrial
society, millions of people in the US, perhaps unlike elsewhere, can cling
to outmoded ‘moral’ precepts founded on fundamentalist, evangelical
religion?

Many of those who voted for Bush, including a small but increased layer
of Afro-Americans, in effect voted for their oppressors, the big
capitalists who finance and support Bush and against their own economic
self interests. There are many historical and cultural reasons, including
the urge to hold on to some kind of ‘security’ in the form of the
family and the church in an uncertain world, in a period of turmoil and
upheaval. Such support for their own worst enemies, however, is very
tenuous and will be shaken by the big events that impend in the US and
internationally.

Moreover, in this election, the American people were not given a real
choice. Democratic Party candidate Kerry, with his changing positions and
general ‘flip-floppery’ engendered no real confidence. He voted for
the Iraq war and then voted against funds to support it. When he was
challenged he made things far worse: "I actually did vote for the $87
billion before I voted against it."

Poverty

Hardly anything was heard from him about the increased poverty, the
million jobs lost under Bush’s rule, the shameful state of healthcare in
the US, etc, as he concentrated on his Vietnam War record. The ‘middle
class’ and the ‘underclass’ were mentioned but never the working
class, its needs and interests, despite the fact that the trade union
leadership poured millions of dollars into Kerry’s election coffers.

At the same time, the shadow of 9/11 and the fear of a repeat hung over
this election. The Republican Party – now cloaked in the garb of an
American nationalist party – presented itself as the ‘comfort blanket’
to prevent any repeat of 9/11 by means of an international ‘war on
terror’. Bush will attempt to unscrupulously utilise this for a
programme of ‘more of the same’ on the international arena as well as
at home.

He has already alleged that the American people have given him
"increased capital", which he intends to use to the full. The
fear now is of a more ferocious military onslaught and a worsening of the
war in Iraq, as well as a new military ‘pre-emption’ against Iran,
Syria and a dangerous confrontation with North Korea.

However, Bush faces failure and defeat in Iraq in a war that he cannot
win on the basis of the present military and financial capacity of the US
alone. It is experiencing ‘imperialist overstretch’ with not enough
military forces to hold the whole of Iraq in check never mind launching
new military adventures.

Vietnam War

The war is also swallowing more government funds  proportionately
than even the Vietnam War of over 30 years ago. Yale University economist
William Nordhouse has estimated that, in modern prices, the Vietnam War
cost around $500 billion (£270 billion) over eight years from 1964, while
Iraq will have hit half that level by next autumn after just two and a
half years.

Even the neo-conservatives around Bush expect that US troops may only
stay until the Iraqi ‘elections’ and then beat a retreat. If such an
‘exit’ strategy was pursued, Iraq itself could implode – break up
– with massive repercussions for neighbouring countries.

Iran, on the other hand, has a population almost three times bigger
than Iraq. Bush no doubt dreams that a military ‘pre-emption’ could
topple the conservative mullahs in Tehran. There are undoubtedly
widespread illusions in Iran, especially amongst young people about
American living standards and even ‘democracy’. But as the example of
Iraq demonstrates, any military intervention would resurrect Iranian
nationalism, with the majority of the population prepared to confront any
invasion force.

The main military option open to the US is to use one of its ‘proxies’,
Israel, for instance, which bombed Saddam’s nuclear facilities in 1981.
Even that is problematical, as Jack Straw has admitted, given the changed
situation in Israel and the explosive repercussions of such an action in
the Middle East region, particularly amongst the Shias in Iraq, Lebanon
and elsewhere. Therefore, economic sanctions to weaken the Iranian regime
are the most likely weapon of the Bush regime.

North Korea

Similarly, confrontation with North Korea, which already possesses
nuclear weapons, is extremely dangerous. Even economic sanctions that led
to the toppling of the North Korean regime would result in a mass exodus
to the South. This could lead to the collapse of South Korea as well, with
the US forced to step in to pick up the bill.

Nevertheless, the antiwar movement and the labour movement worldwide
must be vigilant and be prepared to oppose any programme for increased
military incursions by US imperialism. The first Bush term stirred up a
mass antiwar movement worldwide. This has not gone to sleep because of one
election result but remains mobilised, in particular against the war and
further bloodletting in Iraq.

At home, Bush’s right-wing reactionary programme, with his ‘divinely
ordained’ victory, will probably mean the appointment of more
conservative judges to the Supreme Court in order to ram through a
repudiation of the 1973 Roe v Wade abortion ruling, to oppose gay rights
and to suppress stem cell research. If this is coupled with the part-privatisation
of social security, attempts to, in effect, abolish all taxes on the rich
and their replacement with a ‘sales tax’, an explosion of anger
exceeding the antiwar movements of the 1960s and against the Iraq War,
will ensue.

Unlike Bush’s first term, this second one could see the emergence of
a mass opposition and an increasingly socialist youth movement coupled
with the re-emergence of the US working class. The first Bush term
represented a whiff of reaction; the second, if it is the whip of
reaction, can result in a movement that will challenge not just his regime
but the very existence of US capitalism itself.