Tornado Alley (PROG)

[laurap]

Now Bush will have to face American ziggurat
By Amir Taheri, Special to Gulf News
Published: October 07, 2008, 23:26


Ever since his administration became a lame duck, US President George W. Bush must have wondered how his eight-year stewardship of the American destiny would draw to a close.

For more than half a century, American presidential terms have not ended in anything like a bouquet finale of appreciative fireworks. Most often they have ended either in a cacophony of scandal or, if the man in question was lucky, in a whimper.

John F. Kennedy was murdered before the end of his first term.

Lyndon Johnson was so hounded and humiliated that he foreswore the possibility of seeking a second term.

His successor, Richard Nixon, disappeared in the thick fog of scandal produced by Watergate.

Gerald Ford was pushed off the stage of history after being transformed into the caricature of a president.

Jimmy Carter, humiliated by his Iranian adventures, was sent home without even a pat on the back.

Even the mighty Ronald Reagan had to spend much of his second term dealing with the Iran-Contra scandal that forever modified aspects of his political biography. George Bush senior failed to secure a second term by becoming the Republican who collected fewer votes in a presidential election than anyone save Barry Goldwater in 1964.

The end was even uglier for his successor, Bill Clinton, whose name shall forever remain associated with that of the Lolita intern, Monica Lewinsky.

Background

Against such a background, it would not be foolish to suggest that Bush should be prepared for the worst kind of ending possible. Already, things do not look brilliant for him and his party. The US economy, supposed to be teetering on the brink of meltdown, is unlikely to switch from the debit column to the credit one before Bush leaves the White House in January 2009.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be presented as victories, even though the US has achieved all the reasonable military objectives it might have had in those countries. To cap it all, the Republican Party may end up suffering an historic defeat as its presence in the House of Representatives and the Senate shrinks to an all-time low, while the Democrats also capture the White House with the most radical leftist candidate they have fielded since George McGovern.

Still, since history is never written in advance, that worst-case scenario may not happen. The real economy, still robust, may mount enough of a comeback to attenuate the current image of crisis and recession. The idea that the US may have actually won in Iraq may yet sink in. Americans might remember that their homeland has not suffered any terrorist attack since 9/11, and that the nebulous of groups that produced the tragedy may have been shattered beyond repair.

If Bush manages to leave the White House even with a whimper, he would be one very lucky person. For being hounded and humiliated seems to be part of the duties of a US president. Placed at the centre of power but denied the means of exercising it effectively, a US president has been transformed into a figure of fetish bearing the collective guilt of the nation.

In his recent campaign stumps, Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, has put that theory into action by blaming Bush for everything.

It was Bush who borrowed all those astronomical sums of money without having the means of repaying them.

It was Bush who lent all those billions to people with little or no credit. The fat cats secured their own golden parachutes and then cut everyone else's. Again, Bush is to blame. What about the party of defeat, including Obama himself, whose chant of "the war-is-lost" encouraged the insurgents to continue fighting in Iraq long after it had become clear that they could not win? Again, the blame is put on Bush.

Socrates disliked democracy for two reasons. The first was that it enabled the populace to pretend to a wisdom it did not, indeed, could not, have. The second, and the worst, was that it allowed politicians to flatter that populace as even the vilest of courtiers would not dare praise a potentate.

Thus, we hear that the American people have been victims of this or that as if they were mere objects in their own story. It was as if Bush had put a gun to their temple and forced-marched them to the nearest bank to get a loan they could not afford. It is as if Bush sold them the portfolios far beyond their bailiwick.

Here, we are in the realm of the president as a sacrificial offering to fate and furies.

The theory of the leader as scapegoat is as old as the history of politics. The Aztecs, who once had an empire in Central America, chose their king for a period of seven years at the end of which they would dress him in the best of his regal fineries, throw a huge feast in his honour, and then march him up one of those Mexican ziggurats and throw him down to his death.

In one form or another, the perennity of political power requires sacrifice. In totalitarian systems, the sacrifice is selected by the ruler from among his subjects: religious or ethnic minorities, real or imagined class enemies, heretics and revisionists.

In a democracy, especially in this age of political correctness, no one could go far by blaming any minority. The best candidate for playing sacrifice is the man at the top. Kill the chief, instead of hail the chief - albeit metaphorically.

What is remarkable is that the Americans are not asking themselves why it is that all, repeat all, their presidents since Eisenhower, have ended in death or ignominy.

Next month this time, the Americans, having elected a new president, would know the name of the man who would then be directed towards that ziggurat ascending which would take four years.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe

http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10250467.html