Living in Bush’s World
Over the last few days, I have been trying to picture the America we may have to learn to live in if George Bush wins re-election. I haven’t given up on Kerry, but at this point it is prudent and realistic to consider the eventuality of a Bush victory, under circumstances that are likely to be at least as divisive and dubious as the election of 2000. Kerry has shown signs of spirit, but this is far from the killer instinct he will need to prevail, especially in a close race. It seems clear to me that Bush has no intention of leaving office, regardless of the election outcome, if there is any last bit of chicanery he and his people can use to cling to power. Barring a decisive win on either side, there will be court cases, claims and counter-claims of corruption and scandal, and a concerted effort to make sure that the truth, if it is knowable at all, is lost in a haze of bitter accusations. In the end, the Presidency will be decided by the naked exercise of power – something that our Republican friends are much better at, and much more comfortable with, than we are. We will get another four years of Bush – crowing and arrogant, determined to impose his vision of the country through whatever means necessary, and gleefully ready to crush all opposition once and for all.
Since this scenario seems likely to me, I am preparing for it mentally so that I will not be utterly disillusioned if it happens and will only be pleasantly surprised by any other outcome. Needless to say, I am still doing everything I can to prevent it from coming to that, but I am beginning to feel that events are out of my hands, or anyone’s.
Over the next few days, time permitting, I want to explore what this will mean for the country, both as an idea and as a reality. It’s become clear over the past three and a half years that Bush and the “conservative” movement he represents hold a very different set of values from those we’ve come to identify as typically American during the 20th century. So far, these values have not manifested specifically as policy pronouncements, except in oblique and spin-doctored ways (e.g., “the ownership society,” “tax relief,” “pre-emptive war,” “protection of marriage”). These innocuous slogans hint at a truly radical vision of society and government: more stratified, more aggressive, with a greater emphasis on social conformity over personal happiness. To people with liberal values or merely raised in the liberal environment of the past 70 years, this obviously sounds disturbing, perhaps unthinkable. But the evidence indicates that there are those among us who would welcome these changes and either don’t know or don’t care what the consequences might be should their vision be realized.
Bush and his team are going very far to make sure that this choice is never made explicit in the election, and the media are, for the most part, obliging him by not connecting the dots in the larger picture. The focus is, for obvious reasons, on national security and Iraq. This is important, of course, but it’s also an area where the ideological difference between the candidates is small. It’s also an area where Bush and his people have little incentive to take effective action, because the siege mentality serves to put people in a receptive state for the kind of radical social transformations that they hope to achieve. Their goal is like that of a successful TV sitcom – keep the small dramatic conflicts coming, but in the end, don’t make any real changes to the premise, otherwise you’re off the air. The “war on terror” is therefore best understood as a tactic in service of a larger agenda rather than a central theme in itself.
The 2000 election was cast as a battle of personalities, between the stiff Gore and the easygoing and folksy Bush. In fact, what was at stake was the future of public finance. Gore tried, in his awkward and awful way, to make this clear with the “lockbox” argument about Social Security. What Gore promised was to be a good steward of the economy, guiding the national debt toward retirement and therefore putting all government accounts on a firmer footing. Without debt service as a budget item, the structural cost of government would continue to shrink, allowing Gore and the Democrats to offer increased social services and lower taxes. The “conservative movement” would be in shambles, with neither issues nor convenient political scapegoats as levers into power.
Bush and his people understood this much clearer than anyone except perhaps Bill Clinton, and, by making the election about everything except what was really on their minds, they were successful in slapping a rosy coat of paint on Bush’s profoundly irresponsible tax policies and kept their real agenda of scuttling the Clinton economy and reversing the budget surplus off the table until the election was decided. The recession that followed Bush into office (and was exacerbated by the alarmist pronouncements of Bush, Cheney and the incoming economic team) and 9/11 helped them realize their goals while concealing the true impact of the 2001 tax cuts.
This year, the election being fought putatively on the grounds of anti-terrorism and Iraq is actually about the future of some fundamental aspects of our society. Should Bush win, we can expect a full-scale assault on a number of fronts. Over the next few days, I hope to address each of these areas in its own post:
- Privatization of public policy
- Social regimentation
- Reconstruction of the international political order
- Marginalization of organized opposition (e.g., the Democratic party, unions, independent media, citizen groups, etc.) through targeted attacks on institutional and financial support
This agenda represents the fever-dreams of ideologues who see the world in a profoundly different way than most people. Uncomfortable with complexity and ambiguity, they can only feel comfortable with a social structure that re-enforces control, authority, conformity and the certainty of their own beliefs. They despise the notion of “public interest” and any system that accords equal rights to the strong and the weak because this inhibits the absolute freedom of action they believe is the prerogative of the ruling class. For them, government is an instrument for the enforcement of orthodoxy and the dissemination of comforting propaganda. The idea that government might be used to regulate or redistribute economic benefits is, to them, an obscenity that must be tolerated only so long as these programs enjoy organized support.
This is not how most Americans see the world. I remain hopeful that it is not even how most Republicans see the world. But it is undeniably the vision of Bush and the “conservative” movement, as any sincere believer will be happy to tell you in a moment of candor. And, if Bush wins, it is the vision we will have to learn to live with, somehow, even if it no longer looks like the America we remember.
1:43:47 PM 
|
|
