:: Govind Talwalkar

Imperial era ends at White House

By Govind Talwalkar

On January 20, 2009 the flawed imperial presidency of George Bush would come to an end. In a very well argued book, the late Prof. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has shown how, in the course of two centuries, US presidents succeeded in increasing their power and how Richard Nixon turned it into an imperial one.

Schlesinger says, "The belief of the Nixon administration in its own mandate and its own virtue, compounded by its conviction that the republic was in mortal danger from internal enemies, produced an unprecedented concentration of power in the White House and unprecedented attempt to transform the presidency of the Constitution into a plebiscitary presidency".

The internal enemies were political opponents. Mr Bush’s enemies were those who attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Mr Bush, the blue-eyed boy of the media in his campaign days, did not have to face internal enemies or political opponents for almost the whole of his first term.

Not only his Republican party, but also the Democratic party voluntarily suspended all disbelief. Both parties in the Congress were eager to pass whatever measure the Bush administration desired. With few exceptions, most did not question the necessity and wisdom of attacking Iraq when, after the defeat of Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Mr Bush had abandoned that country.

Mr Bush touted himself as the "war president" and most of the media also thought the country had found a real leader. The President declared a war on terror which is never ending; He warned the nations of the world that they would either be with the US or against it; Mr Bush discarded the Geneva Convention, which guarantees basic rights to prisoners of war and categorised them as enemy combatants. He was warned that such a policy might endanger the lives and safety of Americans abroad, but he paid no heed.

Though there were some hardcore criminals, but Guantanamo Bay was not the only course open. It was later found that the US government could not find any proof to convict most of the detainees.

Russia provided valuable assistance when Nato allies went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and also in dealing with North Korea. But Mr Bush reverted to the Cold War policy and brought Russia’s neighbouring states into Nato. The US’ anti-missile facilities in Poland antagonised Russia. Mr Bush and his then secretary of defence were foolish to ignore Europe, dividing it into new and old; the new Europe being the recently-freed nations from the Soviet block.

Whatever be Nixon’s failures, his China policy totally changed world politics and ushered in a new era. Mr Bush has no such achievements to his credit.

Though the American Constitution had separated the church and the state, Nixon started pampering religious leaders. Reagan too followed this policy, but Mr George Bush took it to the extreme. For the last eight years evangelicals have had too much influence in matters of the state.

The press was very cosy with Mr Bush in the first six years of his tenure. And with the exception of a few Democrats, the Congress too did not oppose his demands. Even Barack Obama, who opposed the war in Iraq when he was not in the US senate, changed his course and never voted against any of the demands for the Army.

Mr Bush is the first MBA who occupied the White House. But several of his Cabinet members and assistants proved to be inefficient and yet received awards and promotions. Those who thought of invading Iraq did not anticipate that rehabilitation would be an uphill task.

Mr Bush continued with Bill Clinton’s policy of ignoring Afghanistan and, in addition, he blindly relied on Pervez Musharraf and poured billions of dollars into Pakistan, 80 per cent of which was spent on buying weapons for its proxy war in India. This fact has now been admitted by the Pentagon and the CIA.

The commendable policy of Mr Bush was to massively increase donations to African countries in their fight against Aids. He also contributed very large amounts to the rehabilitation of tsunami victims.

As an Indian, I must also give compliments to Mr Bush for being bold enough to enter into a new relationship with India, cutting the bureaucratic cobwebs and defying the mindset of some of his Cabinet members. It was he who discarded what was known as "hyphenation" of policy, i.e. linking India with Pakistan. Mr Bush signed the nuclear deal which meant that India could now access technology that had been denied to it for many decades.

Under the Bush administration, financial management was very chaotic. In fact, the conservatives in his party did not approve of the government spending public money like gamblers. The country was living on borrowed money, but Mr Bush made a fetish of the free market and removed almost all checks and balances on the market. The Congress failed to have an oversight. The credit card facility was misused by people who, like the government, were living beyond their means.

It must be remembered that though the financial meltdown started with the US, no country managed its finances responsibly. In the US and several advanced countries, banks and investment firms were let loose and cheap money was god-sent for the speculators.

In the US, no industry is immune from the present catastrophe. Though the reduced oil prices are a solace, the unemployment rate is rising and people are worried about their savings and pension funds. Even God could not save places of worship and a large number of churches are going bankrupt — several are either being auctioned off or are on the verge of foreclosure.

Both Nixon and Mr Bush, thus, aimed at building an imperial presidency but failed miserably. Nixon could not tame his opponents whom he regarded as enemies, and Mr Bush could not vanquish Osama and his terrorist organisations. In fact, because of his short-sighted policies, Islamic terrorist organisations have proliferated in several countries. Such a flawed imperial presidency was bound to fail.