"Who would want to be President?" That's the comment I've heard recently, whenever I've discussed the presidential primaries with my Berkeley friends. Noting the mess George W. Bush has made, they shake their heads, and say, "The next President will have to spend four years working 24 hours per day repairing the wreckage."
The damage begins with Iraq, where the Bush Administration has fractured that country beyond repair. Unless the next President is John McCain – or some other Republican committed to keeping the maximum possible number of troops in Iraq until we "win" – the US will have to withdraw forces from Iraq and begin closing down our bases there. This is unlikely to be a clean process; the move may not foment civil war in Iraq, but it will undoubtedly lead to a prolonged period of instability and there will be major problems with Iraq's neighbors, probably a Turkish invasion of the northern Kurdish area.
But it's not only Iraq that's been demolished; it's the entirety of Bush's ill-conceived "war" on terror. It's painfully obvious to everyone, except the residents of the White House, that we made a disastrous mistake when we abandoned the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden and engaged in a war of choice in Iraq. Therefore, the next President will have to send more American troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "war" on terror will continue, in a different form, as will many of the financial expenditures.
In parallel, the new President will have to reconstruct Homeland Security. Dubya put all his defense eggs in one basket: "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." As a result, his Administration under invested in Homeland Security, failed to heed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission calling for substantial investment in our first responders and in common-sense actions such as monitoring freight coming into the country.
For all these reasons the 44th President will have to propose defense expenditures comparable to the current level. Unfortunately, these requests will come at a time when the Federal Government is running in the red and being asked to increase our massive deficit to alleviate a recession.
George W. Bush and his Neocon Republican advisers have shattered the American economy. The precipitous economic downturn is a direct consequence of his ideological "trifecta:" de regulation, tax reduction, and profligate spending. For seven years the simpleminded Bush ideology has been to solve all problems by reducing government surveillance of the marketplace, cutting taxes, and throwing obscene amounts of money at the military. This sapped the vitality of the American economy and created a pervasive ethos of greed and self-indulgence.
The next President will have to begin the arduous process of reversing the Bush-era policies: increasing government surveillance and regulation, raising taxes on the rich and powerful, and cutting wasteful Federal expenditures. Most importantly, he or she will have to change the atmosphere in the United States, inspire Americans to believe they must do more for their country than "go shopping."
If the conflict between funding a redirected war on terror while dealing with a recession isn't a difficult enough problem, the situation facing the next President will be made worse by three other circumstances. The first is the necessity for massive reinvestment in America's "infrastructure." Our transportation system desperately needs repair, as does our domestic infrastructure: schools, housing, and health services. Over the past seven years, the Bush Administration shredded the social safety net while supporting policies that diminished the number of meaningful jobs in the US.
The second critical circumstance is the challenge for Americans to dramatically change their use of fossil fuels. One of the factors that have caused the recession is inflation resulting from increased energy costs. The public needs to switch from oil to other methods of powering our vehicles and we all must begin using public transportation -- a switch that will require massive new investment in our transportation infrastructure.
The third disturbing circumstance is global climate change. We must modify our lifestyles because we are running out of fossil fuel and our prodigious use of gasoline-powered vehicles is accelerating global warming.
Think about it. The next President will be asked to hold military spending constant – while changing defense priorities – and to deal with a recession by cutting taxes while at the same time massively increasing investment in America's infrastructure. On the face of it, this sounds like an impossible challenge. It's no wonder people ask, "Who would want to be President?"
What all these problems have in common is the necessity for the next President to challenge the American people. The absolute imperative is that he or she must tell them the truth about what needs to be done to protect our democracy, and inspire them to make the sacrifices that are required for the common good. To be successful, the 44th President must adopt different policies and strike a radically different tone than did George W. Bush. The next President must be more than a successful politician; they must be a true leader.
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.
Empire and imperialism is a very expensive business indeed.While Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Blackwater and all the rest of them have “earned” trillions of dollars from the WOT and the madness in Iraq and Afghanistan, the freight has been paid by the American taxpayers and the battle waged with the lives of America’s young troops.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Burnett when he says:
“Therefore, the next President will have to send more American troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The "war" on terror will continue, in a different form, as will many of the financial expenditures.”
This is a prescription for more war, less global stability and a continuance of America’s militarism and warped spending priorities.
In a recent article, Chalmers Johnson explained that America’s actual annual defense spending was more than $1.1 TRILLION.The spending on defense by the rest of the world combined amounted to only $500 BILLION. Does the US really need to spend more than two times the rest of the world combined to be safe? The answer is: “of course NOT!”
In the name of empire, a name only whispered by a few and NOT mentioned EVER by any of the “leading” presidential candidates of either party or by the broadcast networks or the American press, the US maintains more than 730 military bases overseas. In fact, Bin Laden allegedly referred to the presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia as a primary motivation to attack the US. Are these bases a “forward presence” designed to protect the US or are they really a forward presence to “do whatever is necessary” to protect multi-national corporate interests overseas? The taxpayers foot the bill; the US Treasury is depleted; the corporations reap the benefits.
When we talk about the WOT, it seems to me we have a choice to make. I am not one who doubts there are forces hostile to the US who would attack us given the opportunity. But to call for more military escalation, to call for more troops being sent abroad, to call for level defense funding truly misses the point. If we want to lessen the risk of terrorism and lessen the credibility of those seeking to build armies against us, the path is NOT to agitate them further but to stop occupying and exploiting less powerful nations. A peaceful, benevolent America is not going to be a target the way an imperialistic, empire-building America clearly is.
The benefits of this approach are immeasurable.First, a “Peace Corps” approach to the rest of the world instead of a “military bases” approach builds goodwill among the community of nations. Put simply, more goodwill means a more secure America.Second, dismantling America’s military empire allows us to shift spending priorities away from the very narrow segment that profits from this misguided activity and into much more broadly-based, critically needed programs such as education, infrastructure, and social safety net.
As an old Graham Nash song once said:“Military madness is killing the country.”
Mr. Burnett is absolutely right when he states:
“The next President must be more than a successful politician; they must be a true leader.”
Here’s the bad news:none of the “leading” candidates running for President has shown any leadership at all, not an iota, on the critical issue of dismantling America’s empire. None has called for massive cuts in our Treasury-bankrupting, third world agitating defense budget. Yes, America needs leadership; no, we ain’t gonna be getting any from the 2008 elections. The status quo will continue unabated until there is nothing left to steal.
by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 10:24:13 AM
When I scrolled down to read your comment, Welsh Terrier, and I found exactly what I was thinking...well stated, brother. It's about time that people realized just how disastrous the military beast is and what a pernicious strangle hold it has on our lives, economically, mentally and spiritually.
by
Papawhale (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 3:30:14 PM
That's what Bush said last night, and since all candidates except Ron Paul have already been bought and paid for, they will "finish the business." But their business is not in your interest. Their business is to complete the end game of collapsing, and then owning title, to your property and your businesses. When BofA owns Countrywide, 20% of American homes will have their title held by BofA. And BofA largest shareholders are NOT of this country.
Ron CANNOT do it alone. Even if elected, he is not a dictator. The public must wise up and realize they've been sold out since the days of Reagan, no matter to what party they belong. There really isn't much time left, and this comment is coming from an optimist! If I was a pessimist, I'd say "Sometimes The Dragon Wins."
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 3:25:42 PM
I disagree with my Berkeley neighbor Mr Burnett, on most of
his central points. Specifically --
-"the US will have to withdraw forces from Iraq and begin closing down our bases there..." - Nope. This will not happen, no matter who the next president is. The US is controlled by corporate interests. They have no intention of letting go of an oil-rich prize like Iraq, where they're building permanent bases.
-"It's painfully obvious to everyone....that we made a disastrous mistake when we abandoned the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden and engaged in a war of choice in Iraq..." - Nope. It is also idiotic to be sending an army out after Osama. The "war on terror" is no more just than the Iraq war. They are both crimes of US imperialism, & motivated by the same logic.
-"The next President will have to begin the arduous process of reversing the Bush-era policies..." - The next president is not going to reverse anything whatsoever. None of the Dem Party leading candidates is even talking about reversing anything. They're scared to even mention Bush's name. They want to pretend he never existed. The only Democrats who suggested doing anything significantly different were banned from the debates, or otherwise marginalized.
-"Think about it. The next President will be asked to hold military spending constant –..." - It's not a matter of "being asked to." Rather, the only way to become a US president is to indicate full fealty to the MIC. Military spending could certainly be slashed by 80% without it endangering real security needs in the slightest. The fact that none of these clowns will cut mil. spending reflects the power of the MIC, not any realistic need for what they do.
-"The absolute imperative is that he or she must tell them the truth about what needs to be done to protect our democracy..." - First of all, we don't have a democracy. We have a soft tyranny, a dictatorship of big money. Secondly, there is zero chance of any Democrat or Republican telling the public "the truth." Anyone who speaks the truth puts themself out of the running to be president. Only horrific liars are allowed to ascend to high office.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1232 comments)
on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 1:15:10 AM
I quote the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was also a WW2 general
"Beware the military industrial complex, if it ever gets a foothold in government we are doomed (sic)" His words were highly prophetic. What do we do now? I wish I knew...
by
memary (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 70 comments)
on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 6:33:24 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
