Stronger, but wiser?

Tuesday's sweeping victory by the Republicans in the U.S. midterm congressional elections is further confirmation of a global trend toward conservatism that started in Europe three or four years ago, and is now moving to the Americas. Call it a paradox of globalization, but it is not necessarily inexplicable.

In voting for conservative forces, people in Europe, and now in America, were conveying their reservations, not so much about globalization itself, but more about the impact that this process was having on their lives. If non-governmental organizations use protests, at times tinged with violence, to convey their objections to the process of globalization, ordinary people in Europe and the Americas are using ballots to vote for the party perceived to be best-suited to address such concerns.

There are, however, considerable differences between President George W. Bush's Republicans and the conservative, or right wing, forces in Europe. For a start, the U.S. is today the world's lone superpower. Any party in office in Washington would be in a position to dictate the terms and pace of globalization, which would suit the interests of Americans. Secondly, American patriotism has been on the rise, not so much in response to globalization as to the threat of terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, (9/11) attacks in New York and Washington.

Republicans won this year's elections fair and square. There are different interpretations of the causes of this historic victory that saw the party in power winning midterm elections.

The wartime conditions -- Americans are technically still at war against terrorism and are now on the verge of proclaiming one against Iraq -- certainly gave the incumbent President and his Republican party an edge. Judging by the election results, they seem to have taken full advantage of their position.

Democrats must take the lion's share of the blame. They lacked a rallying figure who could have mustered the necessary support. Former president Bill Clinton tried, but he came onto the scene too late, and even then, only halfheartedly. Democrats also failed to come up with a clear-cut program as a viable alternative to President Bush's policies.

The outcome of the elections has given President Bush greater power, even greater than that he has enjoyed all this time. His Republican party now controls both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Emerging even more popular after the 9/11 terrorist attacks last year, this week's elections should see a more powerful, if not more confident, George W. Bush.

On foreign policy, there is, of course, strong concern in the rest of the world that a more powerful American leader would continue the pattern of going it alone that seems to have been his hallmark since he took office two years ago.

There has never been any doubt that the U.S. would attack Iraq, sooner or later, whatever the outcome of this week's elections. But the elections have given Bush greater legitimacy to pursue his policies in countering terrorism, which includes an attack on Iraq, one of the "axis of evils" in his view. There are valid concerns about where Bush, who seems to get his way almost all the time, will take his campaign next after Iraq.

This is an American leader who has a history of defying international opinion on many occasions, such as on issues like global warming, on the establishment of an international criminal court, on trade matters and lately on the war on Iraq. This is an American leader who seems to derive his legitimacy more from the American people, even on matters of international affairs.

But then again, this is also the leader of one of the most democratic countries in the world. President Bush's powers, as omnipotent as they may seem to the rest of the world, are not without democratic checks and balances at home. If there is still any force in the world that could stop President Bush from attacking Iraq, if would be the American public. If there is any force in the world that can prevent him from extending his war, it will have to be Americans themselves. We may recall that America lost the Vietnam war in the 1970s partly because of public opinion at home.

This is also a president who has proven that he is a fast learner while on the job, at least when it comes to foreign policy. Most people were dismissive about his foreign policy knowledge and skills when he assumed office at the start of 2001. But George W. Bush has had the benefit of the skills of his Secretary of State Colin Powell. While Powell was, at times, overridden by the more hawkish elements in Bush's administration, he has prevailed over them at other times. In short, this is a President who is also willing to learn, and is maturing.

While we know that President George W. Bush is now stronger and more confident after Tuesday's elections, we hope he will also be wiser and more mature too, for these are additional qualifications essential for the job of leader of the most powerful country on earth.