REGIME CHANGE 2004
The last four years have been hard times for America. The 9/11 terrorist attacks brought to us destruction and grief on a scale that has forever changed the face of the homeland.
Everyone agrees that something must be done to confront the threat of terrorism. This includes strengthening security here and promoting freedom and democracy globally. Sadly, that is where agreement ends. Despite a strong showing of unity at home and overwhelming international support after 9/11, America and the world is now more divided than at any time in the post-war era.
The Bush Administration is making the situation worse not better. In 2000 Bush supported "compassionate conservatism" and political unity, but he has abandoned this stance of moderation for an extreme right-wing agenda. Bush may have won the electoral vote, but he never had a popular mandate for the policies that he has instituted through executive orders. He actually lost the popular vote by over half a million votes nationally. Instead of the modesty and humility that the Florida election scandal demanded, Bush's actions have eroded unity in the homeland and dissolved trust among our global allies. Americans have to take responsibility for this decline and restore confidence both at home and abroad. If the U.S. is truly a global leader to be trusted, we have to prove this with real, substantive reform here in the homeland. The first and most important step we can take is rejecting a second term for George W. Bush.
FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY
Americans must reject Bush's reckless foreign policy. The central thesis of the Bush Doctrine, that America should strike first when its national security is threatened, contravenes several moral principles that are at the heart of American values. These values include respect for the rule of law, taking responsibility for poor judgments, holding elected officials accountable, and not using our military power capriciously and haphazardly.Bush used 9/11 and fears of terrorism as pretexts to invade Iraq. This has divided our allies, diminished our military resources to fight terrorism, destroyed the credibility of our foreign policy in the Middle East, and incited even more hatred against us. At a time when America needs to be winning the "hearts and minds" of people around the globe who are skeptical of our intentions, Bush's foreign policy has accomplished the opposite. Opinion of America in the Muslim world and around the globe is at an historic low point. Even our traditional allies, like France, Great Britain, Germany, and Japan doubt that Bush is taking the right path to bring stability and peace to the international order.
They say hindsight is 20/20. We now know that the "threat" of Iraq was based on misleading information, false analysis, and political spin. It is legitimate for people to genuinely worry about "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD's) ending up in the hands of terrorists. Nevertheless, this fear should not be manipulated by contrived analytical scenarios and so called terrorism experts. Bush has not only allowed paranoia and the assumption of our own infallibility to guide foreign policy, he has encouraged it with reckless statements that he has failed to take responsibility for. Our national security policy should be based on objective judgments and more sober analysis. The fact is Saddam's regime was thoroughly debilitated in the 1991 Gulf War, and Iraq had no WMD's. In addition, the 9/11 Commission's report definitively makes clear that Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda, the principle terrorist organization we are supposed to be fighting. Therefore, the two principal arguments for invading Iraq-that Saddam had WMD's and ties to al Qaeda-are bogus, and the justification for the war in Iraq is clearly based on poor judgments.
Certainly an evil dictator was removed from power. There is no question that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein; it does not follow that we, or the rest of the world, are safer for it. Reflect for a moment on the history of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Saddam was an evil dictator that the Reagan Administration armed and supported throughout the 1980's. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld can be seen in the accompanying photo shaking hands with Saddam in 1983 during a weapons deal. Are we to believe that people like this are good policy makers for our national security? Clearly not.
Rumsfeld and Hussein
Bush continues to make American foreign policy short-sighted. He refuses to acknowledge that the invasion of Iraq was based on a series of mistakes and poor judgments, and we are now just as vulnerable, if not more so, to terrorism. Perhaps we should heed George Santanaya's famous words: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The U.S. occupation of Iraq is slowly descending into a permanent "police action," which edges ever closer to civil war. The situation there will not improve without a greater commitment of troops and economic aid for reconstruction. As the conflict in Vietnam progressed from 1965-1972, America bitterly learned the lesson that sometimes no amount of troops and money ensures victory. Why have we not learned that we cannot police the world "whatever the cost"?
THE ECONOMY
Second, Bush's economic policies are eroding the long-term stability and welfare of the homeland. His tax and growth policy masquerade as a sensible, beneficial policy for average Americans, but in reality it excessively serve elite corporate interests. Under the Republican banner of "tax cuts," wealthier Americans pay less and the middle-class pays more of a fiscal burden that is spiraling out of control. Are you a Republican because you believe in small government, states' rights, and fiscal austerity? No part of Bush's agenda matches these political ideals. Consider the following.1. Tax cuts. The purpose of tax cuts is to curb wasteful government spending and stimulate the economy by encouraging Americans to invest or spend more of their income. The former is supposed to encourage firms to expand as investment flows increase, while the latter is supposed to increase effective demand, like consumers buying more goods. Both effects are supposed to create jobs. Bush's tax cuts have not encouraged job creation. Why? First, the tax cuts are targeted to the wealthiest income earners, and not middle-class and lower-class families. Consequently, the tax burden for lower-income earners ends up increasing disproportionately. Maybe it sounds good to get $100 or even $1000 back from Bush's tax cut in one year, but this one time return comes at the future cost of sharing more of the fiscal burden for generating revenue. As the government continues to grow and spend in the future for all kinds of programs, ranging from Social Security to the defense budget, lower-income earners will carry more of the tax burden out of their pockets. Add in Bush's runaway deficit spending, which we will be paying off for the next 50 years or more, and it is easy to see why the battle cry of "TAX CUTS" is a fallacious rhetorical slogan without economic merit.
2. From surpluses to deficits. The fact is Bush inherited a trillion dollar surplus from the Clinton Administration and turned it into the largest deficit in the history of the U.S. that our children will have to pay off. Even worse, the deficit is having negative effects on domestic economic growth. For example, companies and investors are wary of investing in U.S. Treasury bonds, which the government issues to generate revenue and to make interest payments on foreign debt. No rational economic actor wants to invest in an entity that is borrowing even greater amounts while revenues are in steep decline. Now it is easy to see the irrationality of cutting taxes and spending more: the solvency of the U.S. government is doubtful, and as a result investors are less confident in the markets and their returns under such economic conditions. America's runaway deficit under a Republican-controlled government forever puts to rest the idea that a person who is "fiscally conservative" can vote Republican with an honest conscience! The Democrats have turned out to be the party of fiscal responsibility, while the Bush Administration is the most reckless, liberal spender in the history of the country.
3.The jobless recovery. The 1990's witnessed strong economic growth over several years. Some of that growth was a speculation bubble to be sure, particularly in the technology sector, as the Internet came in with gusto and went out with greed. The Bush Administration has presided over the single largest job loss since the Great Depression. Of course the 9/11 terrorist attacks traumatized markets and set back economic recovery. Most economists agree that Bush's policies have done little, if anything, to create good jobs for working Americans. The fact is that under Bush's tax policies, companies have incentive to outsource production and create overseas shelters to hide taxable profits. In addition, firms have found more efficient ways to increase productivity without adding new workers, which has led to large profits for firms and dividends for investors in some sectors of the market, while leaving workers with unemployment and wage stagnation. In the last 2 years, overall wages in the U.S. have actually declined. The fact is Bush's policies have no economic merit by any standards, except half-truths and propaganda, wishful thinking, and highly selective use of economic data.
THE DECLINE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Finally, the constant threat of terrorism is making America a less democratic country. Since 9/11 the Patriot Act has become a key component of the war against terrorism. We might need parts of this legislation to fight terrorism effectively, but there are elements of it that either ignore or undermine the legal system of checks and balances that ensures due process for American citizens. Many credible organizations and groups agree that parts of the Patriot Act violate the Constitution's protection of civil liberties.Even worse, the Bush Administration is also the most secretive in the history of the United States, which means less transparency, less accountability, less democracy, and less freedom.
- Bush won the 2000 election under questionable circumstances in Florida where Republicans like his brother and Katherine Harris systematically and knowingly disenfranchised thousands of legitimate, registered voters. (Click here for Multimedia Presentation)
- Bush formulated a national energy policy behind closed doors, inviting industry executives and lobbyists to influence environmental policy. Bush's "Clean Skies Initiative" is an environmental policy that rewards polluters and makes America's air and water less clean. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney denies that the public has a right and interest in knowing who met with him during the formulation of this energy policy. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on this extremely important case in the fall.
- The Bush Administration denies that there were warnings prior to the 9/11 attacks, but a clear pattern of warnings and inaction by the Administration have been exposed by the 9/11 investigation.
- Defectors from the Bush Administration, ranging from former Treasury Secretary PaulO'Neill to Bush's own anti-terrorism coordinator on the National Security Council, Richard Clarke, have stated publicly that Bush used terrorism as a false pretext for invading Iraq.
- America's top scientists report (PDF file) that the Bush Administration is misusing and distorting scientific information for political purposes to formulate policy.
- The abuse and torture of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq is both widespread and systematic. The Bush Administration has taken no responsibility for prisoner abuse, torture, and war crimes. Are we to believe that no one is to be held accountable but enlisted soldiers and National Guardsmen?
Whether you are Republican, Democrat, Green, or Independent, you should be concerned about the direction of our country. If you are not concerned, or you just plain think Bush is an effective and balanced leader, you are not paying close attention to the details that matter. You need to think more independently, read more about these problems using independent sources, and take a more proactive interest in informing yourself about the facts.
America and the world cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush.
