![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Translation from Portuguese:
BUSH AGAIN? NOBODY DESERVES IT
If the world has to face four more years with the American president, there are two hypotheses: one not very good, the other even worse.
It isn't hard to guess world reaction if George W. Bush loses the election: a sigh of relief of planetary proportions. If he wins, can the world stand four more years with this president's aggressive, incompetent and dangerous to the USA's own higher interests and those of the rest of humanity behavior? There's no more dangerous political exercise, in the unstable world of today, than that of prognostics, but we can say that there are basically two school of thoughts on what the second reign of George II will be like. One says that we'll get a light version of the first mandate, the other, foresees an even broader exercise of imperial power.
In the most benign of them, Bush will direct his energies towards internal affairs (more restrictions on abortions, less taxes, flexibleness of labour laws, obstacles on gay marriage should be among the pet projects) and carrying on Iraq's occupation until a good excuse comes up - an elected government that takes, for example - to get the hell out without a failure ticket. The gravity of the Iraq situation alone is the biggest impediment to new adventures abroad. The neo-conservative project to reshape the Middle East, and by extension, the world, of planting democracies of instantaneous flourishing where grateful citizens applaud and cheer the kindness of the Americans, was cruelly archived in face of reality.
(It goes on for a bit to talk about the fear that Bush will feel free to force his change of regime by might on other countries and on the possibility of new alliances with countries with muslim insurgencies - Russia, India, Israel.)
... the unjustifiable obsession that led to Iraq's invasion, and even worse, the disastrous manner that the occupation was conducted produced results so counterproductive that they are more and more criticized not by the usual adversaries, but by traditional conservatives, fearing the perspective of four more years of bushism. A thesis is gaining voice that Bush is not really right wing, but a kind of forged conservative that acted against their [conservatives] own interests.
"The imperial project of the so called neo-conservatives has nothing to do with conservatism", wrote Clyde Prestowitz, member of the tribe and author of a book about the last half-century of American foreign politics. "It's about radicalism, egotism and adventurism dressed with a strident patriotism rhetoric. Real conservatives were never messianic or doctrinaire."
Even The Economist, bastion of fancy conservatism, responsible, along with Tony Blair, for one of the most brilliant pieces of intellectual defence of the Iraq invasion, gave up: last week, with a weary heart, it defended a vote for Kerry.
The world already has enough problems - it doesn't need George Bush to add to them.
Translation of cover:
Elections in the USA
One more punch on democracy?
Americans are going to vote in fear of the 2000 nightmare repeating itself and that the voting booths don't indicate a legimately elected president.
Disclaimer: This is a translation done on the spot (so any awkwardness of language is my own) to give you an idea what the rest of the world's press is writing about the elections in the USA. It comes from a magazine called Veja, published in Brazil (this week's edition). It can be compared to something like the USA's Time magazine or Newsweek. Here's the link for the magazine's >home page<.
BUSH AGAIN? NOBODY DESERVES IT
If the world has to face four more years with the American president, there are two hypotheses: one not very good, the other even worse.
It isn't hard to guess world reaction if George W. Bush loses the election: a sigh of relief of planetary proportions. If he wins, can the world stand four more years with this president's aggressive, incompetent and dangerous to the USA's own higher interests and those of the rest of humanity behavior? There's no more dangerous political exercise, in the unstable world of today, than that of prognostics, but we can say that there are basically two school of thoughts on what the second reign of George II will be like. One says that we'll get a light version of the first mandate, the other, foresees an even broader exercise of imperial power.
In the most benign of them, Bush will direct his energies towards internal affairs (more restrictions on abortions, less taxes, flexibleness of labour laws, obstacles on gay marriage should be among the pet projects) and carrying on Iraq's occupation until a good excuse comes up - an elected government that takes, for example - to get the hell out without a failure ticket. The gravity of the Iraq situation alone is the biggest impediment to new adventures abroad. The neo-conservative project to reshape the Middle East, and by extension, the world, of planting democracies of instantaneous flourishing where grateful citizens applaud and cheer the kindness of the Americans, was cruelly archived in face of reality.
(It goes on for a bit to talk about the fear that Bush will feel free to force his change of regime by might on other countries and on the possibility of new alliances with countries with muslim insurgencies - Russia, India, Israel.)
... the unjustifiable obsession that led to Iraq's invasion, and even worse, the disastrous manner that the occupation was conducted produced results so counterproductive that they are more and more criticized not by the usual adversaries, but by traditional conservatives, fearing the perspective of four more years of bushism. A thesis is gaining voice that Bush is not really right wing, but a kind of forged conservative that acted against their [conservatives] own interests.
"The imperial project of the so called neo-conservatives has nothing to do with conservatism", wrote Clyde Prestowitz, member of the tribe and author of a book about the last half-century of American foreign politics. "It's about radicalism, egotism and adventurism dressed with a strident patriotism rhetoric. Real conservatives were never messianic or doctrinaire."
Even The Economist, bastion of fancy conservatism, responsible, along with Tony Blair, for one of the most brilliant pieces of intellectual defence of the Iraq invasion, gave up: last week, with a weary heart, it defended a vote for Kerry.
The world already has enough problems - it doesn't need George Bush to add to them.
Translation of cover:
Elections in the USA
One more punch on democracy?
Americans are going to vote in fear of the 2000 nightmare repeating itself and that the voting booths don't indicate a legimately elected president.
Disclaimer: This is a translation done on the spot (so any awkwardness of language is my own) to give you an idea what the rest of the world's press is writing about the elections in the USA. It comes from a magazine called Veja, published in Brazil (this week's edition). It can be compared to something like the USA's Time magazine or Newsweek. Here's the link for the magazine's >home page<.
X-Posted
