The 'incompatible trio' and the November elections

by Michael Jansen

The Bush campaign organisation has, so far successfully, managed to combine three normally incompatible political elements in its drive to secure a second term for George Bush in the White House. The first element is "big oil", the second is the substantial vote of the fundamentalist Christian coalition, and the third is the "know-nothing" position of a majority of US citizens.

While opposition to his war on Iraq is rising gradually, Bush still manages to come out on a par in polls with his Democrat party rival, John Kerry. Unless there are horrifying developments in Iraq or serious scandals involving members of the Bush administration who are closest to the president - Vice President Dick Cheney or Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - the November race for the presidency could very well be too close to call. Bush, perhaps the worst and most reckless president the US has ever had, could secure another four years in power, creating new risks for the stability of the Middle East and the peace of the world.

During the campaign of 2000, "big oil" - the major US oil companies - was projected by the Bushes and seen by the Arabs and their friends as a factor restraining a future Bush administration from adopting pro-Israel policies. "Big oil" contributed millions to the Bush campaign fund and a majority of US citizens of Arab origin who voted cast their ballots for Bush. But "big oil" not only failed to limit Israel's influence in Washington, it did not prevent the Bush administration from identifying totally with the government and policies of right-wing, expansionist Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon. Bush refused to take part in peace making, distanced himself from Israel's repeated armed aggressions against the Palestinians, and rejected contacts with Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. There was not a peep from "big oil".

Perhaps "big oil" and its allies, Halliburton and Bechtel, understood that Bush had every intention of rewarding it for its unqualified support of Israel. After all, Bush repeatedly spoke of "regime change" in Iraq and had every intention of following up these words with deeds. Big oil had great expectations; it was likely to be given the opportunity to exploit Iraq's oil fields, reap profits from exports, and develop new fields. It forgave Bush's alienation of the Arabs over Palestine and awaited the day Saddam's regime was toppled in Iraq.

Of course, once this happened, things did not quite turn out as Bush and big oil planned. Bush proposed, the Iraqis disposed. More than a year after the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the country's oil exports remain at lower than pre-war levels. Insecurity and sabotage have prevented Iraq from exporting by way of the northern, Turkish, pipeline, and the lack of electricity and instability have cut the flow through the southern terminal. Kidnappings and killings of foreign contractors and attacks on installations have made it clear that big oil cannot expect quick profits or to begin work on new fields. Caught up in Bush's rhetoric and policies, big oil cannot afford to abandon him now.

Christian fundamentalists, who account for about 30 per cent of US citizens, remain loyal to Bush because he supports their agenda both at home and abroad. At home, he is anti-abortion, openly supportive of "Christian" causes and "values", and against same-sex marriage (a big issue at the moment). Abroad, he takes a pro-Israel, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim line. Many fundamentalists believe Israel is the realisation of Jewish prophecies and its Arab opponents are seen as opponents of the will of the fundamentalist/Jewish deity. Bush's occupation of Iraq is regarded as an extension of his "war on terrorism", which is, above all, designed to protect and sustain Israel. As far as Christian fundamentalists are concerned, the deaths of US soldiers and civilians in Iraq are acceptable in the sacred crusade Bush is waging in the Middle East. Since Bush remains fully committed to the fundamentalists' causes, he is unlikely to lose their support in November.

The third factor, the large know-nothing constituency, is, perhaps, the most important. Amongst the citizens of the United States, the vast majority not only knows nothing of international affairs, it also distrusts politicians of all parties and does not even interest itself in US national, regional and local affairs. As a result, there is a sharp disconnect between the governed and government at all levels. Mismanagement, inefficiency and corruption flourishes in all spheres. Only the most educated elements of the populace have an interest in governance and policy. For most, news consists of the scores of their favourite football and baseball teams, weather reports, and information on the flow of traffic on their routes to work in the morning. In some parts of the US - the mid-west, for instance - it is impossible to find a respectable news bulletin, unless one is close enough to Canada to tune into the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Local newspapers offer scant foreign coverage and those which do carry news from Palestine or Iraq also print opinion articles and editorials heavily slanted against the resistance in both countries.

For instance, the Richmond Times-Dispatch (Virginia) carried an opinion piece this week by Daniel Henninger who argues that the abuse and torture of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison west of Baghdad was not as horrifying as that practised by the ousted Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. No comparison should be made. Saddam never said he was bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq. Quite the opposite. He was in word and deed a dictator who used oppression, repression and punishment of his opponents to stay in power. The Bush administration, which claims to have liberated Iraq in order to bring "democracy" to the Iraqi people, cannot arrest thousands, abuse, torture and humiliate them and expect to be honoured for its breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Accords, international and humanitarian law, and common decency.

But US citizens attached to the big oil lobby or belonging to the Christian fundamentalist and "know-nothing" constituencies do not apply their minds to misleading and downright falsifying opinions promulgated by the print and electronic media. They believe whatever they are told. Consequently, few question Bush, his motives and actions. This gives him the leeway to do whatever he wants at home and abroad. It remains to be seen how subservient big oil, aggressive Christian fundamentalists and the passive "know-nothing" will influence the November elections.

This article was originally published in the Thursday, May 20, 2004 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.