US Prez: 1 in the Hand Worth 2 in the Bush…
Holy shit fire and save the matches! I'm back in action my plaid friends! Sorry for the significant sizzling summer hiatus, but as the new semester approaches it is now time for the Avenger to change out of the speedo and back into the suit…and get back to work assessing the asinine antics of administrations across the globe. In fact, for the rest of this month, I will be doing just that: let's take a look at world leaders and movers and shakers that have significant impact on global events. These are the people that every citizen should be able to recognize by sight, identify their politics and power positions, and understand their motivations and movements….all in order to more completely comprehend what the hell is happening across the plaid planet. Ready then? On we go…
This will be a background building exercise for our international 'rogue's gallery' of folks that you should know in order to be globally literate, fashionably informed and completely chic. As these pages are posted, they will also be hot-linked to the 'Global Gallery' section of this site, so you can check back often for updates and insights.
So if we are going to do a run-down of the world's most important leaders, with no reservation we have to start here at home with the leader of the free world himself, George W. Bush.
Well what can we say about the 'compassionate conservative' Georgie Boy in just a page or two that hasn't been documented in a trillion other articles and books in the last 8 years? Probably not much. The American Presidency is still the most powerful position on earth, regardless of party, beliefs, or intelligence of the person who holds the post. So let me spend this very first leader run-down introducing you to few terms which will help you understand the rest of the Bush Presidency, and more importantly, the rest of this rogue run-down.
With no reservations I tell you that Bush is the most powerful man on the planet in terms of shaping global policies, global events, and global news. Even on his very last day in office (which is fast approaching), President Bush has more power than any other world leader on their first day in office. As will his predecessor. How is this so? Well, the US is the single largest economy in the world, and money does matter in terms of power. More to the point, being the leader of the sole superpower on the planet, the American President has at his disposal the most advanced and lethal military in the world, the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry in the world, and a government structure which allows him/her to use these tools with great speed and few hurdles.
Result: Even in the most unpopular, unsupported, unattractive and un-powerful American President has the ability to start a war or totally annihilate the planet in his last five minutes on the job. Damn, that's power!
Now that's the power that the position of American President wields. Let's talk about the man currently in that position. President George Bush is many different things to many different people, and I'm not getting into a glory-fest nor a bash-fest here. However I am going to give him several descriptors that can also be applied to his soon-to-be-elected replacement, as well as other world leaders discussed in this manual. Strangely enough, one of these terms is about being alone, while the other two have to do with birds…and how does the old saying go?…Oh yes, now I remember: One in the hand is worth two in the Bush. Ha! How appropriate! But let's get to the terms…
George Walker Texas Ranger Bush has led the mighty USA for almost eight years…and his time is almost up! Being a second-term President in the US means you can't run for office any more, thus the first term I want you to know about George is that he is a lame-duck leader. Well what the hell does that mean? This label is applied to any elected official who has lost political power and/or is no longer responsive to the electorate because they are in their last days in office…in this case because of term limits. Bush can't run for office again, therefore he doesn't have to 'build bridges' or be nice to his enemies or even appease the American people on any given subject…'cause it don't matter if people like him or not now! He's leaving either way!
The flip side of this equation is that other politicians, and indeed even other world leaders, feel no need to work with him anymore on any new policies or initiatives. What would be the point? He's leaving soon! Bush's lame duck status is compounded even further by his low approval ratings at home and abroad. You can see this clearly in the news events of the year leading up to his last day in office: there are no new programs or policies in the works, no senators or lobbyist pushing him to do any real work, and all visits to foreign countries are simply 'goodwill tours' where President Bush just hangs out with other heads of state and makes nice speeches about how everyone should continue to push the policies of the past well into the future.
Don't believe me? The President took an extended European vacation in summer 2008 where he met with a slew of leaders and gave a slew of speeches…every single one of which suggested that the War on Terror must be continued and also that Iran is evil and must be stopped. No exceptions. And no surprises to those of us that understand how the world works. On top of that, the Bush Administration has been desperately trying to arrange a peace process/treaty for the Arab/Israeli dispute in their last year in power. Unfortunately, no one in the Middle East gives a hoot about the Bush initiative, since all parties know that a new President with a new perspective will soon be in office. Why would any of them waste their time taking Cheney and Condi seriously? Answer: they don't. It's the lame duck syndrome.
So it is always important to know how much longer any given leader has left in office, because it does truly affect their power and effectiveness. A king or dictator always has all the power…right up to the second someone deposes their dumb asses. A democratically elected leader's power shifts with current events, personal diplomatic skills, personal popularity, and time left in office. You dig?
But onto another bird which perhaps helps describe why President Bush and his administration have such low approval ratings around the world…and that word is hawkish. Like'em or hate'em, the Bush administration will go down in history being defined as a hawkish bunch. In politics, to be hawkish means that you have an actively aggressive attitude to solving problems and you favor military force/action in order to carry out foreign policy objectives. Some of the keywords in that definition are actively and favor, reinforcing the idea that military force is the most desirable option. Vigorous and immediate action (in a military sense) is the foundation stone of a hawkish leader's/administration's foreign policy, as they see the tools of diplomacy as too slow and ineffective. I don't have to go into detail here: War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, War on Drugs, War on Terror…I think you get the point.
Of course, the opposite descriptor is to be a dove, or dove-like or dovish: that is, favoring vigorous diplomacy first and foremost, with military action only to be used as an absolute last resort. We will use both these terms throughout the text. But let's stay on point here: President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and current Secretary of State Rice are all staunchly in the hawkish camp. That alone is only a single descriptor, and quite frankly there no sin in having an aggressive point of view. It's the next word that lowered the world view of President Bush and his administration…
And that would be unilateral. The main reason that much of the world, and many individual world leaders, currently hold the US at arms length in disdain is because the Bush administration has also been extremely unilateral in many of their actions on the last 8 years…meaning they act alone; a team of one. Early on, the Bush administration consistently asked the world to support their version of foreign policy, and when the world refused to…the Bushies went ahead with their plans anyway. President Bush and his team would argue that they had to do the right thing in their opinion, regardless of the willy-nilly world opinion and slow response of the UN…and that is an easily made argument that roughly half of the US population supports.
This rift is most clearly seen in the current US war in Iraq, which was extremely unpopular within the UN and world opinion as a whole. Ever wonder why the UN or NATO or a whole bunch of other US allies are not helping in Iraq? It's because the US acted unilaterally, which served to piss off all those other institutions.
So a unilateralist leader is one who often leads his country to act alone; the opposite term would be multilateralism, which suggests an eagerness to act alongside of others. Remember that war hero guy Colin Powell? He was the original Secretary of State under President Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Colin was a devout multilateralist who worked hard to get other countries on board for the war, but he was quickly squeezed out of the unilateral Bush administration because of the conflicts in their beliefs and approaches to conducting war. So now you know how the real shit goes down.
In summary, President George Bush has led a hawkish administration which conducted most of their affairs in a very unilateralist vein, which is one of the reasons they are extremely unpopular in US and world opinion…and thus part of his extreme lame duck status. Given his low approval ratings at home combined with his fleeting time left in office, I have to give President Bush a palsy 1.1 on the Plaid Power Rating at home. These same factors also detract from his power in the global arena as well—however, as President of the US up to his last day in office, he still achieves a whopping Plaid World Power Rating of 8.5. His predecessor will have an even higher rating as soon as the election finishes…and the world is already eagerly awaiting to see who will win that democratic dogfight, so they can see what new world-affecting policies will be enacted.
Got all that? Know those terms in bold, as they are oft used in describing political players the world over, and you will see them again soon in scribblings on this very site. Speaking of which, I need to sharpen my ice skates and secure a case of Moosehead beer in order to be fully prepared to head north to report on the next world leader of note….
