Bush wins, Osama loses
James Wong Wing OnPublished: Nov 4, 2004 7:50 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Like it or not, most of the opinion polls outside the United States have shown that President George W Bush has been unpopular for all sorts of reasons, chief among them, are the decision to wage a war without United Nations' sanction against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and also the general perception that, under Bush's first term, the superpower has been increasingly unilateral in its conduct of international relations.
However, it is also a fact that Bush is now the most popular and legitimate president elected in recent years in the most open, democratic and politically competitive country in the world, whose playing field cannot be said to be uneven.
How to account for the obvious discrepancy of Bush's domestic standing and global image?
Like it or not, most of the opinion polls outside the United States have shown that President George W Bush has been unpopular for all sorts of reasons, chief among them, are the decision to wage a war without United Nations' sanction against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and also the general perception that, under Bush's first term, the superpower has been increasingly unilateral in its conduct of international relations.
However, it is also a fact that Bush is now the most popular and legitimate president elected in recent years in the most open, democratic and politically competitive country in the world, whose playing field cannot be said to be uneven.
How to account for the obvious discrepancy of Bush's domestic standing and global image?
One answer seems to be almost self-evident: the discrepancy arises from a vast difference between the value-system of the majority of the ordinary people in the US on one hand, and that of the people in the rest of the world.
Stoic defender
To most of Bush's supporters in the American heartland located between the West Coast and Northeast, the globally controversial man is not only their most effective commander-in-chief after the Sept 11 terrorist attack but also a stoic defender of their faith and religio-cultural tradition that has given rise to their society and empowered it to win the first and second world wars against murderous ethno-nationalisms in Europe and Asia.
It is quite clear that the majority of these Americans desire to defend and retain the value-system so that their nation can win the war against global terrorism and religious fanaticism that have succeeded in physically penetrating into their homeland, causing untold suffering, outrage, fear and anxiety.
They seem to feel that the cherished value-system is not only being threatened directly by terrorists and their ideologues and propagandists, but also from being indirectly or subtly eroded by European or European-style liberalism on some socio-cultural issues such as abortion, same-sex marriages and stem cell research.
In the post Sept 11 era, the sentiment is understandable: for a people whose homeland is now shown to be vulnerable and when murderous or lethal anti-Americanism is rampant throughout the world, the instinct is certainly and naturally for self-defence, both physically and psychologically.
This response is, however, not unique as the recent poll results in Australia have shown. What is surprising is that the recent electoral trend in Australia was not taken into consideration by observers and analysts of the 2004 American presidential poll.
Perhaps, it is the nature of intellectual and scientific liberalism that only those who talk in sophisticated manner and write grandiosely are considered worth studying, observing and analysing, while those who seem to be apathetic and keep quiet publicly on earth-shaking issues and grand ideas are ignored or treated as non-existent.
Reading and interpreting apparent silence is certainly not easy either. One needs a heart, not brain, to do that.
However, the gaps between the majority of Americans and the majority of non-Americans in the European, Third and Islamic worlds are not unbridgeable.
First and foremost is for the European, Third and Islamic worlds to honestly accept and respect the reality that Bush is a legitimate leader popularly elected on a more or less level playing field in an open and democratic society.
Whether they agree with him or not on this or that issue, Bush is not Hitler, 'lonely cowboy' or 'heartless moron' as popularly portrayed in anti-war demonstrations around the world.
This acknowledgment has, however, to be reciprocated by Americans who supported Bush as well as the president himself.
Given the resounding victory in the presidential election, it is indeed tempting for a much maligned and misunderstood man to be vindictive. However, as a man who sees himself, and seen by many other Americans, to be God-loving, Bush must show by personal example that security and justice must still be on top of his agenda and there is always room for mercy, compassion and forgiveness in all situations. After all, mercy, compassion and forgiveness are vital values that distinguish civilizations from their nemeses.
Also, while there is nothing to be apologetic about for being God-loving, Bush and his second administration must be on guard against sectarian, extremist and fanatical fringes within the American society that claim to be 'Christian'. They must not be allowed to provoke clashes of civilisations inside or outside the United States.
Softer approach
Above all, the second administration of Bush as well as the Republican-dominated Congress must learn to be more sensitive to the genuine fear and anxiety of millions of ordinary people in the European, Third and Islamic worlds about American unilateralism in its conduct of international relations, which has been widely perceived or felt to be arrogant.
Given the resounding victory of the Republicans for the White House and Congress as well as the reality that the US is the only superpower left on earth, it is tempting and easy to ignore advices, feedback and criticisms from friends and allies on matters that are not operationally pressing or urgent.
However, for the second Bush administration to adopt a more multilateral and softer approach to its conduct of international relations does not mean it should tolerate, or even support or collaborate with, tyrants or anti-democratic regimes. On the contrary, the second Bush administration must continue to be able to distinguish with moral and intellectual clarity - genuine multilateralism from its bogus version that only serves the interests of tyrants and anti-democratic ruling elites in the Third and Islamic worlds.
Meanwhile, both Bush and Senator John Kerry must be congratulated for preserving a normal, democratic and open society amidst the greatest security threat against civilised society. Seen in this light, the real loser in the 2004 American president poll is not Kerry or his supporters but Osama bin Laden, his followers, fellow-travellers, supporters and admirers as well as their totalitarian and fear-based ideology.
However, it is also a fact that Bush is now the most popular and legitimate president elected in recent years in the most open, democratic and politically competitive country in the world, whose playing field cannot be said to be uneven.
How to account for the obvious discrepancy of Bush's domestic standing and global image?
One answer seems to be almost self-evident: the discrepancy arises from a vast difference between the value-system of the majority of the ordinary people in the US on one hand, and that of the people in the rest of the world.
Stoic defender
To most of Bush's supporters in the American heartland located between the West Coast and Northeast, the globally controversial man is not only their most effective commander-in-chief after the Sept 11 terrorist attack but also a stoic defender of their faith and religio-cultural tradition that has given rise to their society and empowered it to win the first and second world wars against murderous ethno-nationalisms in Europe and Asia.
It is quite clear that the majority of these Americans desire to defend and retain the value-system so that their nation can win the war against global terrorism and religious fanaticism that have succeeded in physically penetrating into their homeland, causing untold suffering, outrage, fear and anxiety.
They seem to feel that the cherished value-system is not only being threatened directly by terrorists and their ideologues and propagandists, but also from being indirectly or subtly eroded by European or European-style liberalism on some socio-cultural issues such as abortion, same-sex marriages and stem cell research.
In the post Sept 11 era, the sentiment is understandable: for a people whose homeland is now shown to be vulnerable and when murderous or lethal anti-Americanism is rampant throughout the world, the instinct is certainly and naturally for self-defence, both physically and psychologically.
This response is, however, not unique as the recent poll results in Australia have shown. What is surprising is that the recent electoral trend in Australia was not taken into consideration by observers and analysts of the 2004 American presidential poll.
Perhaps, it is the nature of intellectual and scientific liberalism that only those who talk in sophisticated manner and write grandiosely are considered worth studying, observing and analysing, while those who seem to be apathetic and keep quiet publicly on earth-shaking issues and grand ideas are ignored or treated as non-existent.
Reading and interpreting apparent silence is certainly not easy either. One needs a heart, not brain, to do that.
However, the gaps between the majority of Americans and the majority of non-Americans in the European, Third and Islamic worlds are not unbridgeable.
First and foremost is for the European, Third and Islamic worlds to honestly accept and respect the reality that Bush is a legitimate leader popularly elected on a more or less level playing field in an open and democratic society.
Whether they agree with him or not on this or that issue, Bush is not Hitler, 'lonely cowboy' or 'heartless moron' as popularly portrayed in anti-war demonstrations around the world. This acknowledgment has, however, to be reciprocated by Americans who supported Bush as well as the president himself.
Given the resounding victory in the presidential election, it is indeed tempting for a much maligned and misunderstood man to be vindictive. However, as a man who sees himself, and seen by many other Americans, to be God-loving, Bush must show by personal example that security and justice must still be on top of his agenda and there is always room for mercy, compassion and forgiveness in all situations. After all, mercy, compassion and forgiveness are vital values that distinguish civilizations from their nemeses.
Also, while there is nothing to be apologetic about for being God-loving, Bush and his second administration must be on guard against sectarian, extremist and fanatical fringes within the American society that claim to be 'Christian'. They must not be allowed to provoke clashes of civilisations inside or outside the United States.
Softer approach
Above all, the second administration of Bush as well as the Republican-dominated Congress must learn to be more sensitive to the genuine fear and anxiety of millions of ordinary people in the European, Third and Islamic worlds about American unilateralism in its conduct of international relations, which has been widely perceived or felt to be arrogant.
Given the resounding victory of the Republicans for the White House and Congress as well as the reality that the US is the only superpower left on earth, it is tempting and easy to ignore advices, feedback and criticisms from friends and allies on matters that are not operationally pressing or urgent.
However, for the second Bush administration to adopt a more multilateral and softer approach to its conduct of international relations does not mean it should tolerate, or even support or collaborate with, tyrants or anti-democratic regimes. On the contrary, the second Bush administration must continue to be able to distinguish with moral and intellectual clarity - genuine multilateralism from its bogus version that only serves the interests of tyrants and anti-democratic ruling elites in the Third and Islamic worlds.
Meanwhile, both Bush and Senator John Kerry must be congratulated for preserving a normal, democratic and open society amidst the greatest security threat against civilised society. Seen in this light, the real loser in the 2004 American president poll is not Kerry or his supporters but Osama bin Laden, his followers, fellow-travellers, supporters and admirers as well as their totalitarian and fear-based ideology.
View Comments0