| Go back to September 11. Here’s President George Bush speaking of recent events. "Out of these troubled times," he assured his fellow Americans, "a new world order… can emerge: a new era."
Fast forward two years. Here’s Bush’s secretary of defense at the time, Dick Cheney, on the limits of America’s commitment to remaining in Iraq. "And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict," he said, "for the 146 Americans who were killed in action… it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is, not that damned many."
Wait a minute. Something’s not right here. George Bush talking of a "new world order"? Dick Cheney as secretary of defense? And just 146 American lives lost – surely that’s too low?
OK, OK. In fact, we’ve gone all the way back to September 11, 1990, and President George Herbert Walker Bush – father of the present incumbent – was referring to the recent defeat of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait a month earlier. And it was that military occupation to which now Vice-President Dick Cheney was referring, rather than the current embroilment that seems to suck America in ever deeper, week by week.
Still, here’s the point. Two men, father and son, linked by family, name, political party and – more and more, it seems – destiny. For just as George Bush Sr. saw his victory over Saddam disintegrate into defeat at the ballot box in November 1992, so, too, has his son – whose two terms in office have been defined by his response to the attacks of September 11, 2001 – failed to transform American patriotism and military muscle into sustained support for his administration’s post-war plans for Iraq. Or, for that matter, much else.
George Bush Jr. may well be his father’s son, but in many respects the apple has fallen far from the tree. In hindsight, George Bush Sr. paid more than mere lip service to the role of the United Nations in holding Saddam to account, and, in the wake of the Cold War’s sudden end in 1989-90, his pronouncements offered some real hope that international law and global consensus would replace military and strategic confrontation as the basis of the "new world order." Such hope stands in stark contrast to his son’s vision of the post-September 11 world, in which America – and America alone, it seems – stands as the absolute defender (and arbiter) of global liberty.
Yet even while George Bush Jr. strode the world as a colossus in the wake of his victories over Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), buoyed by domestic approval ratings upward of 80 per cent, there were growing signs that America had begun to tire of its most fortunate son. Events of recent weeks have merely highlighted that fact.
In truth, there has been a more or less steady decline in public support for Bush ever since November 2001, when it reached the astronomical heights of almost 90 per cent. Approval fell by 30 points over the next 15 months, however, before experiencing a brief recovery in the aftermath of the second war on Iraq. Since then, and despite all rhetorical reassurances from the White House that everything was going according to plan, Bush’s ratings have dropped to less than 40 per cent from 70.
Other polls are perhaps more pointed. An Associated Press-Ipsos Reid poll conduced this month recorded that while 60 per cent of Americans find Bush "likable," more or less the same as six months ago, the proportion who describe him as "dependable" has dropped to just 46 per cent from 62. More notable still is the decline in approval of Vice-President Dick Cheney, which is down to less than 20 per cent since his inadvertent shooting of quail-hunt partner Harry Whittington. And as for the current administration’s handling of post-Saddam Iraq, more than 80 per cent of Americans now believe that civil war is inevitable.
More significant still is the fact that support for Bush-Cheney is also evaporating among Republicans themselves. A full 70 per cent of Republicans share the belief that Iraq is headed towards civil war, while last week’s cross-party vote to block the Bush-backed Dubai Ports World bid to control some U.S. ports was the first overt sign that Republicans are now prepared to cross swords with their own president.
In part, this is a symptom of America’s two-term limit on the presidency. Barring some unprecedented constitutional amendment – declared, perhaps, in the shadow of a new threat to national security – Bush’s reign will come to an end in 2008. Already both major parties are eyeing up suitable candidates for that year’s election. And with the American public currently looking to return control of Congress back to the Democrats in this year’s midterm elections, it’s far from a sure thing that Republicans can count on a third successive term in the White House two years from now.
Their hope, at one point, was that Florida Gov. Jeb Bush might enter the 2008 race and so extend the Bush dynasty. This now seems unlikely, although the president’s brother did recently admit that "there’s a vague chance" he might run for president in 2112.
More immediately, though, brother Jeb’s energies have been directed to the Project for the New American Century, a Washington-based think-tank established in 1997 under the chairmanship of William Kristol, a longtime neo-conservative and former chief of staff to George Bush Sr.’s then vice-president, Dan Quayle. Among the PNAC’s "fundamental propositions" is the belief that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world." "Does the U.S. have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades?" asks the PNAC. "Does the U.S. have the resolve to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests?"
Such sentiments are a long way from George Bush Sr.’s declarations of global governance for the post-Cold War world more than a decade ago. They are also questions that remain to be answered. Under his son, America has pursued the admirable goal of liberating Iraq from one murderous tyrant, even while its own leaders delivered a self-serving and morally vacant defence of the right to torture suspects.
Barring a late change of mind by brother Jeb, the Bush dynasty will come to end in November 2008. America will continue on. Just which "principles and interests" it then chooses to follow will once more be open for debate. |
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.