[The following is an editorial written for The Spartan Outlook newspaper's 2008-09 second edition. The more I read it back, the worse I think it is, particularly because a lot of it is just generalized un-researched bullshit, and especially since the end of the article makes me sound like one of those Goddamned teabaggers. But it filled up a ton of space, which was really nice. Written 13 Jan 2009.]
For the past eight years, George W. Bush has filled our nation’s highest office and has acted as the figurehead leader of the free world. But just what, exactly, has he accomplished while in office? Or, perhaps more importantly, what effects will his actions have on the face of American politics in the future? Bush’s legacy is one unlike most other presidents: it is notable not for achievements but more for downfalls. Though his policies and his actions were mostly “legal” in perhaps the loosest definition or interpretation of the term, they still left a strong distaste in the mouths of most Americans. The PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq, and the labeling of an “Axis of Evil” are only a few examples of the Bush administration’s many follies. It is sufficient to say that Bush’s simplistic views of good and evil alienated a good portion of the American people, and they have perhaps ushered in a new, somewhat dark chapter for American politics, at least from my viewpoint.
It must be clarified first that, according to my own beliefs, Bush is a leftist. Although in the American political spectrum he is considered to be a right-wing conservative, by my standpoint he is quite far from this label. I personally ascribe to the European and early American definition of liberalism; a variety often referred to as “classical liberalism” or, more popularly lately, libertarianism. The use of the term “libertarianism” mostly rose as a result of the advent of the new American school of liberal thought, which advocates social democracy and a largely leftist economic policy.
Bush, however, obviously does not fall in with these aforementioned members of the American left. Instead, he is a member of a group in the Republican Party known as the “neoconservatives” or more popularly the “neocons,” a fringe group of conservatives who combine the belief of preserving traditional values with a more American-centric foreign policy, however at the same time are comfortable with the idea of a minor-welfare state and intervention in business. In particular, neoconservatives support the extensive use of American economic and military power to expand the nation’s agenda on the international stage. Bush exemplified this philosophy with an aggressive and belligerent foreign policy coupled with an attitude that overstated the United States’ role as the sole remaining “super power” following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Although acknowledging the “coalition of the willing,” Bush’s foreign policy mostly guided the United States away from too much involvement in cooperative efforts with the international community. Neoconservatives are generally reluctant to abide by multi-lateral treaties, and the lessening of US involvement in the once crucial NATO perfectly exemplifies this ideal that the United States is to be treated as a superior entity. In layman’s terms, neoconservatives generally hold that the world is the United States’ sandbox, and the United States is the “big kid” who chooses who plays and who sits out; from time to time the US must also “deal with” those who don’t play by the rules set down by the big kid. While Bush’s foreign policy towards “enemies” of the United States (read: human rights abusing tinpots and other undesirables) didn’t particularly bother me, the alienation and subordination of allies of the United States was a major downfall of neocon foreign policy for me, and for many Americans. Although obviously domestic policy has much to do with approval ratings, public opinion, and polling performance, I’ll mostly be sticking with the foreign policy aspects of Bush’s regime, as I like to think of that as more my area of “expertise.”
The September 11 attacks were perhaps Bush’s and, by and large, the neoconservatives’ shining moment for a short while. In the days following the 9/11 attacks, the nation was left tired and cold; afraid of the outside world as the nation had been struck a hard blow on its own soil by men from places many Americans could not even pronounce. This served as a prime opportunity for the neocons: neoconservative think-tanks often centered around the middle east as the most likely target that required American influence as the central, more disorganized states of the Middle East lacked such an influence; neoconservative American-centric policy saw the Middle East as the perfect mold for the expansion of America’s influence. Afghanistan proved to be the much-needed foothold. A fast and decisive air campaign, followed by covert strikes and an eventual rollover made Afghanistan a quick, easy target for the United States’ military muscle (at least initially; the insurgency afterward proved to be considerably more a problem). This ‘victory’ gave America the chance to plant its flag in a region much devoid of American influence since Reagan’s administration gave weapons to the mujahideen. “Terrorism” became a scare word and an effective tool for the neoconservatives to maintain a support base. The 9/11 acts, for a time, ushered in a period of 21st century McCarthyism with regard to racial profiling against Middle Easterners.
Afghanistan proved to be an easy launchpad for Bush to expand the “Empire of Liberty” and its influence. His next target, however, was a much bigger prize to be conquered. It was a target often concentrated upon by neocon think tanks as the best target to flex America’s military muscle unilaterally against: Sadaam Hussein and his middle eastern czardom. Iraq, however, proved to be a much more complicated issue as the ethnic tensions and American-aimed hatred caused the nation to fracture into numerous factions following the collapse of Sadaam’s government; all of them fought against one another and most of them were hostile to the United States. Crippling casualties combined with numerous reports of atrocities and civil rights abuses by American troops and their associates turned Iraq from a simple measure in “finding weapons of mass destruction” [a casus belli left ambiguous as to the definition of WMD's, as well as a reported lack of hard evidence for such an action despite strong belief (we won't get into the mythical WMD's, though)] into a situation compared often to Vietnam. Iraq was perhaps one of the final nails in the neoconservatives’ collective coffin, as illustrated with the most recent victory of Barack Obama over John McCain. McCain, although not really a neoconservative, did display some neoconservative tendencies following Bush’s influence.
On that note, however, is Bush’s legacy and impact on modern American politics with regard to Obama’s victory in the general election. Despite the long road of war he ultimately followed, Bush’s true legacy stems not from the direct effects of what he has done, but instead lies with the effects his actions have had on American politics in the long term. Eight years of neoconservative foreign policy have left much of America both war-weary and weary of being regarded by the international community as a nation of bullies. The possible ramifications, however, are of more concern to me than Bush’s initial policies. With the blending of all political affiliations into essentially three groups: Democrat, Republican, and “Other” (of which I must say I reside most in the third), the oversimplifcation of political affiliations has severely hurt the Republican Party for, what I fear, may be several elections to come. The Republican Party has been shown a huge defeat in the most recent election, and will be forced to revamp and change in order to keep pace with the rising tide of Obama’s social democratism. I fear, however, that American politics can only shift further left into the likes of what Europe’s socialist welfare-state atmosphere has become. The American people, being weary of neoconservative rule, have mostly now associated neoconservatives as being the face of the Republican Party. Although the neoconservatives are but a small fraction of the Republican Party’s membership, the association has been enough to strike a deathblow to the GOP. The GOP is now placed with a pivotal decision of where to go, however there is no clear answer to this question. A fracture of sorts is entirely possible, with hardline conservatives and those neocons who cling fruitlessly to their dead ideals split with the more moderate and libertarian Republicans of the party. The Democratic Party, in contrast, is a mostly homogeneous entity with support for widespread socio-economic reform on varied levels. The only logical result to such a schism in the Republican Party is the strengthening of leftism in the face of economic liberalism and freedom, even as the Republican Party’s convoluted ideals served very little to meet those same ends.
