August 5, 2004
MAY AS WELL FOLLOW A REVOLUTIONARY IF YOU'RE PURSUING REVOLUTION:
Careful what you Bush for (Spengler, 8/03/04, Asia Times)
Replacing the commander-in-chief in the midst of war is something Americans never have done, although Abraham Lincoln had some sleepless nights before the 1864 elections. Americans want a war, and will choose the war party in the end, however they may chastise the president for his numerous errors. As in war, in politics as well, the threat is mightier than the execution. Poor results in the opinion polls are a warning to the president, not repudiation.Bush opened Pandora's box a year ago, and not even Kerry proposes to shut it. In this case Pandora's box better resembles a nested set of Russian dolls. Open one, and a bevy of demons flies out, forcing you to open the next one, and so forth. Dubya will be the president who led the US into a world civilizational war, although it is more precise to say that civilizational war led the US into it. Many will be the night during his second term that Bush will wish he were still in Texas, and still drunk.
In his own unassuming fashion, Bush is a world-historical figure in Georg Hegel's sense of the term - never mind that he does not know who Hegel was. A more thoughtful man would recoil in horror at the choices before him and fade into paralysis, like the unfortunate president James Buchanan in 1859. World War I was declared by elderly statesmen who had spent their entire careers (since the 1878 Treaty of Berlin) avoiding a European war. By delaying until the Central and Allied powers had sorted themselves out into two equally matched entities, they ensured that the outcome of war would be the mutual destruction of all the combatants.
World War I could not be forever delayed, though. With its declining population, France stood one generation away from helplessness at the hands of the German Empire; with its rapid industrialization, Russia stood one generation away from military parity with Germany. By analogy, if Washington were to sit on its hands until Iran, Pakistan and other Islamic states developed nuclear weapons, the inevitable future conflict would be ruinous beyond imagination. Europe's demographic collapse and the replacement of European Christians by Middle Eastern and North African Muslims present an even deadlier long-term threat.
Washington will choose preemptive war. Narrow-minded but principled, trusting no one's judgment but his own, petty and ruthless, George W Bush is the man of the hour. The Weltgeist will give him a second term.
Surprisingly for Spengler, this is mostly wrong. FDR was sharply repudiated at the polls in '42--only the fact that the Democrats were still the party of Dixie left them in charge of Congress, though control shifted to the conservatives and permanently ended the New Deal. Truman and LBJ were both forced from office by wars. Jimmy Carter lost because of his inept handling of the Cold War. Americans have no problem defenstrating a wartime president if he's screwing things up.
On the other hand, President Bush picked up seats in his midterm and stands to win not only a personal landslide (as did Reagan) but a slew of congressional seats in November (something Reagan did not achieve in his re-election). Folks seem to think he's doing pretty well in a civilizational war that they're reasonably willing to wage. Indeed, given how spectaularly well it's gone so far, why wouldn't he be re-elected handily?
Posted by Orrin Judd at August 5, 2004 12:55 PMThese kinds of commentary are interestnig and amusing. Bush is narrow-minded and ignorant, petty, ruthless, can't even speak proper English, doesn't read books or newspapers (probably can't read anything above 3rd grade books anyway), unthinking (too stupid to recoil in horror at what he's doing), etc. ad nauseam.
And yet he manages to rout his opponents time after time. And, in his stupidity and ignorance and lack on nuance, he'll manage to save the Arab/Muslim world from the natural consequences of their endgame---the conversion of the Middle East to radioactive glass.
"why wouldn't he be reelected handily?"
Because Kerry is war hero! Because Edwards has better hair! Because Iraq/Afghanistan are quagmires! Because the French don't like us anymore! Because.. Oh nevermind.
Spengler says a lot of things, sometimes incisive, sometimes dumb; sometimes his analyses and formulations have the appearance of brilliance, sometimes they're not entirely coherent.
Sometimes you feel you have to read the thing twice. Sometimes it sounds so conspiratorial that you believe you have to read between the lines.
He throws around a lot of names and sounds sophisticated, so I guess that's way more than half the battle.
Lots of spice. Lots of sizzle. Just don't forget that his kind of journalism is as much prescription as it description. Just don't forget the caveat emptor sign before you start reading.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at August 5, 2004 2:04 PMThere may indeed be a world civilizational conflict, but it didn't start with Bush, nor with his father.
Possibly the start date of the end game was around 1856, when, at the end of the Crimean War, the Ottoman Empire came to be seen not as an equal of European powers, but as weak enough to manipulate.
It's not often a "war", in the shooting sense, although it's as culturally destructive as a war of annihilation.
It's also not world-wide, when there is some shooting or other destruction, and never will be.
The other side can't muster the strength to do anything of that nature; all of the world's powers are at least nominally on the American side of the conflict.
Also, the non-American side lost a long time ago.
Now they're just taking some advice from Dylan Thomas, getting a little payback before going into that good night.
Indeed, given how spectaularly well it's gone so far, why wouldn't he be re-elected handily?
Perhaps because so many people are ignorant of history, and think that it's a catastrophe that we've lost 1,000 American soldiers in the course of conquering and holding two countries with a total population of 50 million. There are, of course, the partisans who know we've done well but complain anyway, but lots of people, especially young ones, probably think we've totally screwed things up.
Posted by: PapayaSF at August 5, 2004 3:01 PMPerhaps. Certainly, Debka's either wrong or it's right (and it's not always wrong.) So yes, it should be read with caution. And While it does have conspiratorial tendencies, it usually presents itself as hard analysis, rather than considered opinion.
It's not quite as presumptuous, though. Spengler. Sheesh.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at August 6, 2004 8:08 AMIf Spengler is right about the coming civilizational world war, then 2004 will seem like paradise in retrospect, some years hence...
By the way, I come to this blog every time a new Spengler column appears... just to get some common sense as an antidote to the dread that his columns engender in me.
Perhaps Orrin and some of his contributors here are too complacent, but damned if I'll look a gift horse too closely in the mouth :-)
Posted by: tictoc at August 6, 2004 4:30 PMtictoc:
In order to have a "world war", there have to be at least two potentially equal adversaries.
In this case, in one corner you have all nations with nuclear weapons and modern armies and air forces, in the other corner you have radicals with small arms and car bombs, as well as a few nations with thirty year old Soviet-era arsenals.
How can that blow up into a "world" war ?
Even if Pakistan's nuclear arsenal did fall into terror-minded hands, the resultant exchange would be swift and brief.
A horror, but no lasting threat to Western Civ.
Michael, true about military (and economic) *capabilities*: the discrepancies are vast. But aren't you ignoring the Tragedy that also unfolds?
Spengler is telling us that we could win the war but lose our morale and self-respect as well as the respect of our children and grandchildren.
There was something innocent, something virginal about Hiroshima: we can't bring that back again.
oj, the king of the "half-liner"! Every word a seed pod coiled to explode; not a redundant pixel to be seen.
I realized too late the adjective I wanted in my earlier posting was not "complacent" but "sanguine". Oh well, I'll get the hang of it.
Posted by: tictoc at August 7, 2004 11:45 AMtictoc:
No one ever loses their children's respect by winning the war--the Europeans have lost their own respect by refusing to fight wars at all. It's why they hate us.
Posted by: oj at August 7, 2004 2:07 PMoj:
Really ?
Then why the horrors of trench warfare in WW I ?
Why did it take six years to defeat the Axis powers in WW II ?
Obviously, the aggressing parties thought that they were powerful enough to have a shot at winning.
Both WW I and WW II were wars of discretion, not necessity, for those who started 'em.
Yes, WWI ended them as peoples. That's why they fell prey to dictators so easily and resisted them so meekly..
Posted by: oj at August 8, 2004 8:01 AM