Anything Better Under Bush?

The prime theme of George Bush's State of the Union Address was how much better the world is thanks to him. Scattered mention was made of hard work to come, and even hints of a few sacrifices to be made by American soldiers, but the general message was clear - Bush had made the world a better place, and if America stuck with him for another four years, he would continue to make it better still. The only question is - better for who?

Political speeches are always easy to make fun of. Comments like "the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" are obvious targets. While this is true, Bush failed to mention that the activities found were pretty much confined to the eighties, with only a few stretching into the nineties, and nothing significant at all just prior to the invasion. But instead of nit-picking, let's concentrate on the substance of the speech.

The State of the Union address portrayed an America and a world that was getting better in every way - economy, freedom, security, human rights. All were improving under George Bush, and despite hard work ahead, would continue to do so. But improving for who? Who benefits from this wonderful new world that Bush and his team are building?

Perhaps the people of America have benefited? Economically, they have seen a federal budget surplus turned into a record deficit, with 2 million fewer jobs than when Bush took power. They've also seen the largest ever terrorist attack on the American mainland. Now, that is not Bush's fault, but why has he repeatedly attempted to block the investigation of 9/11? Why have security improvements been restricted almost exclusively to airlines, with little action taken to block entry at ports? And why has almost no action been taken against the right-wing, white extremists known to be stockpiling weapons in the US?

Perhaps the war in Iraq has made America safer? The International Institute for Strategic Studies has said that some 18,000 Al Qaeda operatives were still active after the campaign in Afghanistan, and that the war in Iraq had probably "increased Al Qaeda's recruiting power and morale". Surely Al Qaeda represented a bigger threat to America than a toothless dictator half a world away? Certainly the news that every technician who could hold a Geiger counter spent the days before New Year scouring the streets searching for signs of a dirty, radioactive bomb would indicate that.

So, for the typical American - more likely to be out of work, facing higher taxes or a devalued currency, under threat of terrorist attack - the world looks no better under Bush, quite possibly worse. And that's before you take into account the Patriot Act 2, allowing the invasion of any person's privacy without judicial review. Is the law unconstitutional? Sure! But claim "National Security" and no one can even ask for further justification.

Maybe it's the people of Iraq who are better off. Well, maybe. Since the invasion, infant mortality has soared, as has religious and ethnic violence and murder. Repression of women - forcing them into the house, into the veil, and off the streets - is being regularly reported, although some areas are worse than others. Will it be worth it to gain a new government? Surely that depends on the government. At the moment, the form of the new government is entirely unclear, so it is a little early to celebrate.

Even if the new government is an improvement, it will be little thanks to the Bush administration, which is about to unveil its fourth plan for a new Iraq. Remember that originally the US Army was going to stroll in, and their prepared government in exile would be welcomed with open arms. Then it became clear that the Iraq National Congress was about as welcome to the average Iraqi as Hussein and his insane sons. So, instead America took control for an "indefinite" period. Strangely, that period is due to finish just before the next presidential election - a decision announced just after the body bags started piling too high. The plan became that in June, America would hand over to an effectively American picked council. Now, that is proving too unpopular, and rumour has it that instead Iraq will have direct elections. Direct elections will require a constitution to be meaningful - and to protect the interests of minorities. A lot to be done in just five months.

The form of the new government in Iraq will occur despite, rather than because of, America. The Bush Administration has from the start tried to resist direct election, has tried to ensure that only those who it considers friends are given power. Has repeatedly shown that it had no idea how to build a new Iraq. If Iraq ends up with a free, democratic government it will be because American plans for the new regime were successfully resisted by the Iraqi people, assisted by international commentators and protesters who have called foul at every anti-democratic move made by Washington.

What about the people of Libya? Are they better off now that their dictator is accepted back into the international fold, having surrendered nuclear weapons he wasn't close to acquiring anyway? Are their human rights irrelevant? What about the people of Pakistan, Uzbekistan, or all the other countries where dictators are currently supported by the American government?

Or perhaps it is the whole world that benefits from Bush. That nature-reserve-drilling, pipe-line-building oil baron. Bush could have done three things to improve the world immeasurably. He could have cut America's energy consumption. He could have ensured clean water for the world's billions. He could have promoted family planning and AIDS prevention world-wide. Instead, America is encouraged to burn more oil, to destroy its natural treasures in a search for more. The money needed to provide clean water world-wide is spent invading Iraq, and then some. And the president cuts aid to any health project that doesn't conform to some nutty so-called "Christian" agenda.

So who exactly has Bush made the world better for? Outside the boardrooms of a few oil companies, it seems these people are hard to find.

Graham Robinson. 21st January 2004.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.