Why Bush Will Fail in Europe posted by Ben

Why Bush Will Fail in Europe:

Late last week, I read a commentary in a print(!) magazine about Condi Rice's recent trip to Europe that hailed this birth of an international superstar, one whose masterful diplomacy and personal skills could even lead to her own presidential campaign in 2008! With Condi firmly espousing the imperialist Buch doctrine, I wonder how that same magazine will find the gushing superlatives to describe Bush's own European trip, taking place right now!

William Pfaff, writing for The Guardian, certainly doesn't buy it.

"This American role is avowedly benevolent, and in the eyes of many Americans, certainly including President Bush, it is of divine origin (Woodrow Wilson also believed this). Within the present administration, there are those who believe cosmic forces are in play and responsible for America's emergence as the sole superpower. The American belief in a divine commission goes back to its religious origins in the 17th century, and is not open to logical refutation. Even secular interpretations of American destiny assert a moral claim, expressed thus in the 19th century: 'The United States has achieved the highest possible form of political system and that this great system can be extended to the rest of humanity ... Because America is exceptionally good, it both deserves to be exceptionally powerful and by nature cannot use its power for evil ends.'

Current transatlantic conflicts are thus not mere political disagreements. They derive from the nature of the evolving relationship between the US and a European Union that considers itself the sovereign legatee of the European powers of the past, and has a conservative commitment to the preservation of international order."

This is the kind of thinking that we are rarely exposed to in mainstream or mass media in this country. It is especially noteworthy, however, because rather than repeating dualistic talking points and calling that repetition 'fair and balanced,' Pfaff takes the time to look at why ideological conflicts exist in the first place. In other words, rather than reacting to an effect (for instance, by trying to end terrorism by killing terrorists) he looks at causes (again for instance, trying to end terrorism by seeking to reform the conditions that cause terrorism) and determines that all fancy rhetoric of pan-Western unity aside, those crazy Europeans don't want one world superpower, especially one as corrupt as the United States under Bush, calling the shots, deciding which international laws to ignore, or bullying smaller countries into another 'coalition of the willing.'

There are a lot of people in this country who have bought into the 21st century incarnation of 19th century manifest destiny, people who believe that America literally can do no wrong. To them, to suggest otherwise is tantamount to treason. (Currently making the rounds in the rightwing spin machine is the meme that Jimmy Carter is on the terrorists' side and is therefore a traitor. Spare me.)

Looking at the structure behind the issues, it seems to me that we ought to be putting a lot more long-term energy into understanding and countering the forces that breed American pseudo-fascists, rather than talking about false bi-partisanship or short-term political victories over those whom we casually dismiss as right-wing nutjobs.

In the meantime, we can expect continued obliviousness from the White House when they assess the sure-to-be stellar results of Bush's European jaunt. Remember, if the press release calls it a success, it's a success!