America: The land of the conservatives

Irman G. Lanti, Jakarta

The reelection of George W. Bush as the president of the United States signified several things about the American electorate that the international community should understand in order to comprehend what is happening in the world's sole superpower.

It is understandable if many in the international community are bewildered by the result of the Nov. 2 election. After all, the common view from outside of the U.S. is that Bush's first term has been problematic, to say the least. Bush who inherited a three-year surplus of more than US$200 billion from the Clinton administration in 2001 has produced a $415 billion deficit in 2004.

On many occasions Bush and his officials said that the deficit was necessary because of the increased spending on defense and security after the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001. Fair enough. But the military actions staged by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq have hardly created peace in the region.

This is not to mention that the military invasion of Iraq was based on false pretext. The weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) justification was based on false intelligence information. In some cases the administration sexed-up the information so it appeared to provide a legitimate justification for war.

And yet, the majority of the American public still thinks that George W. Bush was a decent president and, not only that, was worthy of reelection -- and this election was marked by a rather dramatic increase (by U.S. standards) in voter turnout.

What happened on Nov. 2? The most simple answer is Sept. 11. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon took almost 3000 lives marked a watershed change in America's sense of security and invincibility.

During the four years of his administration, Bush appeared to be taking an unwaveringly tough stance against terrorism.

So when a few days before voting day, Osama bin Laden made an appearance in a taped video aired on the Al Jazeera network, he was actually giving Bush a boost. While Osama must have been thinking that by reappearing, he was in effect jeering Bush and his failed foreign policy, the American people viewed him as an unsolved problem and called Bush back in to sling on his guns and hunt down the bandits.

But there is another side of the Bush victory story that is not readily apparent especially to those outside of the U.S. -- that the Americans are divided on moral issues. During the 1980s the issues mainly surrounded women's right to choose abortions; nowadays the issues of same-sex marriages and stem cell research are more prominent. These issues have driven the conservative voters in the southern and middle United States to the polls. And the influx of these conservative voters was responsible for George W. Bush's victory.

The issue of same-sex marriage is probably one the most passionately debated moral issues in the Western world. It has divided churchgoers and non-churchgoers and liberal and conservative clergymen.

While the issue of stem-cell research is perhaps less controversial, it has nonetheless brought about a sense of threat among the conservatives, especially about the possibility of human cloning.

So when several states decided to bring the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage and funding for stem-cell research to a referendum in this year's election, the influx of conservative voters to the polls was expected. The drive for conservative votes reached a new level of urgency when -- for totally different reasons -- liberals were also publicly urging higher turnouts among the traditional liberal constituents.

This emphasis on morality dumbfounded Kerry's campaign team. They probably did not realize how important this issue has become and how it has mobilized a legion of conservative voters that eventually beat the Democratic candidate.

While it is still too early to tell which direction the second Bush administration will take, there are two scenarios that may transpire.

The first scenario is that Bush will continue the old way of doing things. This includes the continuation of the preemptive doctrine under the pretext of fighting terrorism, even if it must be done unilaterally and the application of strict homeland security measures -- especially the close surveillance of Americans and immigrant groups with Muslim backgrounds that many rights groups perceive as rights violations.

Under this scenario, we can expect the U.S. will wage more wars against countries that are deemed to be proliferating weapons of mass destruction (WMD), are close to terrorist groups or have a recalcitrant anti-U.S. ideology.

But it could also be that the second Bush administration will pursue a second scenario, in which the policies and actions are different from those in the first term.

Under this scenario, Bush realizes the crippling effect of the unilateral adventures in Iraq on the American economy. While the U.S. by far possesses the strongest armed forces in the world, and no single country can ever dream of matching the American military capability, it simply cannot afford to bear all the post-war reconstruction costs by itself -- winning the war is easy but what comes after is messy.

This will deter the Bush administration from adopting more adventurous policies, especially if the possibility of success is doubtful.

If the unilateral aggressive tendency subsides, the drive towards constructive restoration will prevail. The second Bush administration will then spend more time finding diplomatic solutions so that it can have a face-saving exit strategy out of Iraq.

It will be spend much of its energy on re-knitting the trans- Atlantic alliance, while encouraging its European allies to take more initiatives in handling the Iranian or the North Korean WMD questions.

But will this scenario be tenable given that the American public has been growing more conservative lately? Quite possibly. His convincing reelection means Bush can feel more secure carrying out policies that are not popular with his conservative constituents -- after all, he cannot run for office in 2008.

If there really is a sense of pragmatism behind the veneer of ideological conservatism, we can expect Bush to embrace more dovish policies.

The writer is a researcher at the Habibie Center and Center for Information and Development Studies (CIDES), Jakarta.