Mr. Bush: the rogue leader
Yes, there is a rogue leader that we need to be wary of:
Mr. Bush is the most dangerous man
in the world. Dangerous because he has power, because he will stop
at nothing to get his way, and because he seeks to dramatically change
the political landscape of America and of the world.
His behavior during the elections, and the
Florida vote controversy, clearly demonstrated that he would do anything
to win.
Having gained power, Mr. Bush would seek to drastically change the economics of America,
the military balance of the world, and whatever else
he could get his hands on.
One of the lessons that we learned from the Clinton presidency is
that moderation is a virtue. Clinton's first big mistake was to appoint
his wife to study the health care situation in America. However,
the U.S. wasn't necessarily looking for sweeping changes in this system.
Later in his presidency, Clinton implemented many small programs
that had a positive effect on the quality of life. These programs
included education programs, weapons bans, and enviromental
initiatives.
Now, although I'm a liberal, I can understand that Mr. Bush
is a conservative. If Mr. Bush wants to make some changes
to U.S. policy, certainly I can't argue with that. But what
I find troubling is Mr. Bush's willingness to implement major
policy changes that I believe are fundamentally flawed.
These major policy changes threaten to derail a time of relative
peace and prosperity.
In early 2000, as the economy stumbled, Mr. Bush continued to push his tax plan that
Al Gore had described as a "risky tax cut scheme". The original tax
cut plan had been advocated by Mr. Bush because there was a surplus.
"It's not the governments money, it's your money," Mr. Bush explained.
However, by the time Mr. Bush submitted his budget, the economic
landscape had dramatically changed. Now, the tax cut became Mr. Bush's
tool to avert a recession. He aggressively pushed his cut
through Congress, using any method at his disposal to bully senators
and representatives. It should be noted that, unlike a typically detailed
budget, he wrote his budget in such a way as to conceal exactly where
he would make budget cuts. In all likelihood, the U.S. will end up
running a deficit, and the tax cut will do nothing to stimulate the
economy. All of this was typical of Mr. Bush's style: using his full
power to get his way, and implementing dramatic changes that had
not been carefully researched.
At this point, we can all be thankful that Senator Jeffords had enough
of Mr. Bush. A true profile in courage, Senator Jeffords was willing
to sacrifice his career in order to stand for what he thought was right.
By switching parties, Senator Jeffords dramatically reduced Mr. Bush's
power.
Still, Mr. Bush continued to try to push forward his military
and foreign policy. His main goal was to build a missile shield
that would protect the U.S. from rogue states. Basically such
a shield is fundamentally destabilizing to the MAD protocol (Mutual
Assured Destruction) that we have all lived with for the past 50 years.
By advocating the missile shield, Mr. Bush would be destroying the
ABM treaty of 1972. And for what? To protect the U.S. against rogue
states? The leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, was not pleased when
Mr. Bush explained to him that the ABM treaty was obsolete. He
responded by stating that Russia would move to overcome any proposed
missile shield. For the first time, Russia has a leader
that appears to be more sensible and moderate than the leader
of America. In fact, Mr. Bush has returned us to the days of the
Cold War.
In a time where the world was relatively peaceful, he has turned
both Russia and China against us in a span of only 6 months.
Our European allies are also unanimously opposed to the missile shield,
making America the rogue state.
As with the tax cut
and the anti-missile shield, the other proposals of Mr. Bush
show that he has no hesitation
in reversing decades of U.S. policy. This is what makes him so dangerous.
One of the essential aspects of democracy in the U.S. is
moderation. Even though a new President may be elected every four
years (although Mr. Bush was not elected), there must be some
continuity between the policies of the past and the future. One of the interesting things
about President Clinton is that many of his policies were incremental...
small things that improved the quality of life. President Clinton
truly appreciated that he had "a charge to keep". Mr. Bush, on the other
hand, seems to feel that he is free to dispose of any treaty,
discard the I.R.S., or do anything else that suits his whims.
A most dangerous man.