By
Fred Goldstein
The
attitude in the capitalist media toward President George W. Bush and his
administration has come a long way from the obsequious authority worship that
prevailed beginning with the post-Sept. 11, 2001, period, through April 2003
after the invasion of Iraq, and into the early stages of the occupation there.
With
the growth of the Iraqi resistance and a steady rise in U.S. casualties in both
Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the continued jobless recovery, the atmosphere of war
fever and fear has been diluted, if not totally superseded, by skepticism and
discontent among the population.
The
skepticism and disillusionment of the workers, the oppressed and a section of
the middle class should be differentiated from the skepticism and discontent
within sections of the ruling class, which is now being reflected in the media
and parts of the political establishment.
Bush's
fortunes have been steadily declining since the resistance in Iraq broke out and
it became clear that Washington had become bogged down in a quagmire--one that
it is open ended, costing billions every month, and is only yielding profits for
a tiny group of corporate billionaires close to the inner circles of the Bush
administration.
Things
really started to plunge when it surfaced that the Bush timetable to hand over
nominal authority to a puppet regime in Iraq by June 30 was going to fail in the
face of widespread resistance. It was clear to the ruling class and everyone
else that the only basis for the timetable was the schedule of Bush's election
campaign effort. It forced Bush to go hat in hand to ask Kofi Annan and the UN
to pull Washington's irons out of the fire.
The
Bush administration dangerously subordinated political and military strategy in
the explosive arena of Iraq to his election strategy--even though they are in
direct conflict with one another. The administration showed its bungling. It was
humiliated. It is looking for a way to pull back. Considering that U.S.
imperialism has so much on the line as a world power, this must have pushed
alarm bells in the ruling-class establishment.
Kay:
Mission impossible
Just
as this crisis was momentarily easing, David Kay, Bush's hand-picked chief
weapons-of-mass-destruction inspector returned from mission impossible and
announced that there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and that
there was no imminent threat to the U.S.
Kay,
a hawkish true believer who was naïve enough to take a job looking for
something that the Bush administration had not produced one shred of credible
evidence for in two years, was on all the talk shows, testified before Congress,
and was quoted in the media.
Every
U.S. representative in every mission, embassy and consulate around the world had
to face the music and explain away this globally embarrassing fraud that had
been perpetrated by the Bush group. In London, Madrid and Rome, the underlings
of Washington--Blair, Aznar, Berlu sconi, and all the other stooges that
supported the war--collectively cringed. In Paris, Berlin, Brussels and all the
capitals of the rival imperialists, there was triumphal vindication. This was a
diplomatic and political disaster of truly global proportions.
The
split lines in the administration quickly surfaced. George Tenet of the CIA got
himself off the hook on charges of "failed intelligence" by declaring
that the CIA never said there was an "imminent threat." Colin Powell
said he would not have recommended war if he had known. Then everybody got back
in line after distancing themselves from the dirty deeds that they each had
played a crucial part in covering up.
Bush
met the rising demand for an investigation of his administration's handling of
intelligence by changing the subject. He appointed a commission and instructed
it to investigate how spying can be better carried out against Iran, North Korea
and around the world in general. From an inquiry into the criminality of his
administration, it became a war-like witch hunt against countries resisting a
U.S. takeover.
The
'war president'
But
his numbers in the polls were still falling. Karl Rove and his political
strategists decided to send him to NBC's "Meet the Press" for an hour
on Sunday, Feb. 8. Tim Russert put questions to him about the Kay revelations,
the deficit, jobs and the economy and--about his military record in the National
Guard during the Vietnam War.
In
the interview Bush signaled that his political campaign was going to be based
upon reviving fear, belligerence and war fever. Early in the interview he
stated:
"I'm
a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in the foreign-policy
matters with war on my mind. ... And the American people need to know they got a
president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and
it's important for us to deal with them."
During
the rest of the interview Bush lied, evaded and repeated himself without really
being pursued by Russert, who allowed the president to make obviously coached
statements. Bush called Saddam Hussein a "madman" numerous times to
justify going to war, particularly when confronted with the lack of weapons of
mass destruction. He talked about weapons "capabilities" and
ridiculously said that you have to go to deal with threats "before they
become imminent."
He
spoke about the "good momentum when it comes to the creation of jobs."
He defended his tax cuts for the rich by declaring it to be an "economic
stimulus plan."
AWOL--right
and wrong
To
the Bush administration's distress, the capitalist media seized on the Demo
cratic Party's charges that Bush avoided his National Guard service in 1972 when
he was in Alabama working on an election campaign. This secondary issue has
become a major point of contention.
Of
course, every worker or working-class youth has the absolute right to use any
means to avoid becoming cannon fodder in an imperialist war--to avoid fighting
for the interests of their own capitalist class against the people of another
country. Hundreds of thousands of youth did just that during the Vietnam War.
It
is another thing for the sons of the rich to stay home while the children of the
working class are dying on the battlefields to protect the transnational
corporations. If Bush did stay out of the war, and did go AWOL, it is positive
only insofar as there was one less soldier to fight the Vietnamese. But it also
reveals his character in that he would not go fight for his own class. However,
this charge should not be allowed to whip up military patriotism against those
who righteously resisted the war.
In
the midst of the various crises and revelations over Iraq, Bush had to submit
his $2.4-trillion budget, in which he gave massive increases to the military and
homeland security--and cutbacks for at least 65 social programs. His budget came
under attack from the right wing, which demanded more cuts in social spending,
and from progressives for his attacks on the workers and the poor.
But
the budget, combined with the tax cuts for the rich, will widen the deficit. And
this just weeks after the International Monetary Fund issued a dire warning that
U.S. deficits are undermining the stability of the dollar and consequently of
the entire world capitalist economy.
The
growing willingness of the media to criticize Bush, and the use of the
Democratic Party primary campaign by the media to point out the crisis of jobs
and the general discontent of the masses, shows a growing concern about the
conduct of the Bush administration.
O'Neill:
'Bush's Praetorian Guard'
The
recent best-selling book "The Price of Loyalty" by Paul
O'Neill--former secretary of the Treasury for the first two years of this
administration--charges Bush with being a malleable, shallow-minded president,
surrounded by a "Praetorian Guard" of ideologues. O'Neill demonstrates
how the most far-reaching decisions--tax cuts for the rich, the war in Iraq, the
environment, and other matters--are based almost entirely on ideology and for
the political advantage of the governing group. This grouping never permitted
the broader interests of the ruling class to impinge upon their ideological
position or their narrow political agenda. Among other things, O'Neill showed
how the group dismissed the objections of Alan Greenspan, head of the Federal
Reserve Bank, to the sweeping second round of tax cuts for the rich to the tune
of a trillion dollars.
While
coverage of the book lasted only a few news cycles, it has been read by everyone
in Washington. References to it are sprinkled in editorials, columns and talk
shows. For those who think about the fortunes of U.S. imperialism and worry
about how to protect the political, military and financial dominance of Wall
Street and the Pentagon, everything tends to substantiate O'Neill's view: the
Iraq crisis, the rapid buildup of the massive deficit, the diplomatic damage,
the near crisis over steel tariffs. The fact that O'Neill is a rock-ribbed
conservative and government technocrat, formerly the CEO of Alcoa Corp., whose
deep and abiding goals are the preservation of the interests of U.S.
imperialism, only serves to lend credibility to his interpretation.
The
ruling class and its gov't
But
the entire situation only points out the general dilemma of the ruling class. On
the one hand, they have an administration that gives them everything they want.
They had a war to conquer oil and recolonize the Middle East; they had a huge
transfer of wealth with trillions of dollars in tax cuts; they have been
relieved of all obligation to spend any money to preserve the environment; they
have money shoveled into the coffers of the military-industrial complex; the
pharmaceutical companies, the HMOs, agribusiness have been given tens of
billions in subsidies.
On
the other hand, their greed endangers the system as a whole.
This
is a permanent contradiction between the class and its government. When the
individual monopolies and financiers get everything they want as corporate
entities, it tends to undermine the capitalist system and imperialism as a
whole. Everything they want is at the expense of the workers and the oppressed;
at the expense of humanity as a whole. It tends to provoke social unrest and
rebellion and, ultimately, revolution.
They
may complain about Bush. But not one of them wants to give up their tax cut. Not
one wants to spend a nickel to preserve the environment and save the globe if
not forced to. Not one wants to give back their government subsidy. Not one
wants to oppose the seizing of Iraqi oil. To be sure, the ruling class hasn't
given us any sign that they want to abandon Bush as of now, even though they
criticize him.
The
Democratic politicians--John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean and the others
vying to get control of the capitalist state--want to fix imperialism so that it
works better. Their goal is to strengthen the system of exploitation. They will
promise jobs and the world. But if they get to Washington, they will do the
bidding of the same corporate ruling class that has poured $170 million into the
coffers of the Bush 2004 election campaign. They may have more circumspect and
moderate tactics, but their strategic goals will be the same, to strengthen the
domination of U.S. imperialism world-wide.
Bill
Clinton dumped his jobs program and became a deficit hawk once he got into the
White House. He inaugurated the anti-gay "don't ask, don't tell
policy" in deference to the Pentagon and the right wing. He joined with
Newt Gingrich to destroy the welfare program and plunged millions deeper into
poverty and destitution.
Clinton
initiated many of the so-called "anti-terrorist" laws that are being
used today by John Ashcroft. He passed the Effective Death Penalty provision
that drastically curtailed the rights of poor, mainly Black and Latino people,
on death row. He initiated the policy of regime change in Iraq. And he carried
out the merciless war against Yugoslavia, bombing civilians and committing
well-documented war crimes.
And
Clinton was fundamentally no different than any president of U.S. imperialism,
Republican or Democrat, liberal, moderate or conservative. They have served to
enhance the interests of U.S. imperialism, through intervention, war, financial
manipulation or any other means. The only time they have made significant
concessions to the masses was when the people mobilized for struggle: during the
Depression, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and so on.
If
the Bush administration gets in trouble, the last thing the movement should do
is run to the camp of the rival imperialist party, the Democrats. The thing to
do is step up the struggle on all fronts.
(Copyright
Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim
copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information
contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via email: ww@wwpublish.com.
Subscribe wwnews-on@wwpublish.com.
Unsubscribe wwnews-off@wwpublish.com.
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)