America: The land of the conservatives

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.