Bush's Third Term? You're Living It

Cross-posted with Tomdispatch.com

It sounds like the plot for the latest summer horror movie. Imagine, for a moment, that George W. Bush had been allowed a third term as president, had run and had won or stolen it, and that we were all now living (and dying) through it. With the Democrats in control of Congress but Bush still in the Oval Office, the media would certainly be talking endlessly about a mandate for bipartisanship and the importance of taking into account the concerns of Republicans. Can't you just picture it?

There's Dubya now, still rewriting laws via signing statements. Still creating and destroying laws with executive orders. And still violating laws at his whim. Imagine Bush continuing his policy of extraordinary rendition, sending prisoners off to other countries with grim interrogation reputations to be held and tortured. I can even picture him formalizing his policy of preventive detention, sprucing it up with some "due process" even as he permanently removes habeas corpus from our culture.

I picture this demonic president still swearing he doesn't torture, still insisting that he wants to close Guantanamo, but assuring his subordinates that the commander-in-chief has the power to torture "if needed," and maintaining a prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan that makes Guantanamo look like summer camp. I can imagine him continuing to keep secret his warrantless spying programs while protecting the corporations and government officials involved.

If Bush were in his third term, we would already have seen him propose, yet again, the largest military budget in the history of the world. We might well have seen him pretend he was including war funding in the standard budget, and then claim that one final supplemental war budget was still needed, immediately after which he would surely announce that yet another war supplemental bill would be needed down the road. And of course, he would have held onto his Secretary of Defense from his second term, Robert Gates, to run the Pentagon, keep our ongoing wars rolling along, and oversee the better part of our public budget.

Bush would undoubtedly be following through on the agreement he signed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 (except where he chose not to follow through). His generals would, in the meantime, be leaking word that the United States never intended to actually leave. He'd surely be maintaining current levels of troops in Iraq, while sending thousands more troops to Afghanistan and talking about a new "surge" there. He'd probably also be escalating the campaign he launched late in his second term to use drone aircraft to illegally and repeatedly strike into Pakistan's tribal borderlands with Afghanistan.

If Bush were still "the decider" he'd be employing mercenaries like Blackwater and propagandists like the Rendon Group and he might even be expanding the number of private security contractors in Afghanistan. In fact, the whole executive branch would be packed with disreputable corporate executive types. You'd have somebody like John ("May I torture this one some more, please?") Rizzo still serving, at least for a while, as general counsel at the CIA. The White House and Justice Department would be crawling with corporate cronies, people like John Brennan, Greg Craig, James Jones, and Eric Holder. Most of the top prosecutors hired at the Department of Justice for political purposes would still be on the job. And political prisoners, like former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former top Democratic donor Paul Minor would still be abandoned to their fate.

In addition, the bank bailouts Bush and his economic team initiated in his second term would still be rolling along -- with a similar crowd of people running the show. Ben Bernanke, for instance, would certainly have been reappointed to run the Fed. And Bush's third term would have guaranteed that there would be none of the monkeying around with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that the Democrats proposed or promised in their losing presidential campaign. At this point in Bush's third term, no significant new effort would have begun to restore Katrina-decimated New Orleans either.

If the Democrats in Congress attempted to pass any set of needed reforms like, to take an example, new healthcare legislation, Bush, the third termer, would have held secret meetings in the White House with insurance and drug company executives to devise a means to turn such proposals to their advantage. And he would have refused to release the visitor logs so that the American public would have no way of knowing just whom he'd been talking to.

During Bush's second term, some of the lowest ranking torturers from Abu Ghraib were prosecuted as bad apples, while those officials responsible for the policies that led to Abu Ghraib remained untouched. If the public continued to push for justice for torturers during the early months of Bush's third term, he would certainly have gone with another bad apple approach, perhaps targeting only low-ranking CIA interrogators and CIA contractors for prosecution. Bush would undoubtedly have decreed that any higher-ups would not be touched, that we should now be looking forward, not backward. And he would thereby have cemented in place the power of presidents to grant immunity for crimes they themselves authorized.

If Bush were in his third term, some of his first and second term secrets might, by now, have been forced out into the open by lawsuits, but what Americans actually read wouldn't be significantly worse than what we'd already known. What documents saw the light of day would surely have had large portions of their pages redacted, and the vast bulk of documentation that might prove threatening would remain hidden from the public eye. Bush's lawyers would be fighting in court, with ever grander claims of executive power, to keep his wrongdoing out of sight.

Now, here's the funny part. This dark fantasy of a third Bush term is also an accurate portrait of Obama's first term to date. In following Bush, Obama was given the opportunity either to restore the rule of law and the balance of powers or to firmly establish in place what were otherwise aberrant abuses of power. Thus far, President Obama has, in all the areas mentioned above, chosen the latter course. Everything described, from the continuation of crimes to the efforts to hide them away, from the corruption of corporate power to the assertion of the executive power to legislate, is Obama's presidency in its first seven months.

Which doesn't mean there aren't differences in the two moments. For one thing, Democrats have now joined Republicans in approving expanded presidential powers and even -- in the case of wars, military strikes, lawless detention and rendition, warrantless spying, and the obstruction of justice -- presidential crimes. In addition, in the new Democratic era of goodwill, peace and justice movements have been strikingly defunded and, in some cases, even shut down. Many progressive groups now, in fact, take their signals from the president and his team, rather than bringing the public's demands to his doorstep.

If we really were in Bush's third term, people would be far more active and outraged. There would already be a major push to really end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan. Undoubtedly, the Democrats still wouldn't impeach Bush, especially since they'd be able to vote him out before his fourth term, and surely four more years of him wouldn't make all that much difference.

David Swanson is the author of the new book Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union (Seven Stories Press, 2009). He holds a master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia and served as press secretary for Kucinich for President in 2004. Swanson is just beginning a book tour of 48 cities and hopes to see you on the road. Check out his tour schedule by clicking here.

Copyright 2009 David Swanson

 

Comments

[DCBarrister]

Bingo!

[long live israel]

It looks like Obama is a card carrying member of the WASHINGTON INSIDERS CLASS, who are too financially entrenched in the great corruption emanating from Washington to undertake serious changes. The LOBBYISTS seem to run Washington, and it would take a wholesale cleaning of Washington insiders for real change to take place. Obama's administration is a real disappointment so far. We should have elected a progressive outsider with big a real commitment for change. OBAMA is not the man in spite of the promise. AND DON'T TELL ME TO WAIT!! It's like waiting for Godot.

[jmpurser]

I certainly agree Obama is a bitter disappointment in many areas but it is perhaps a bit much to call him Bush's third term. I see him as Clinton's third term MOTIVATED by Bush. Certainly he has accepted several of Bush's worst principles as his own.

[breakfast]

Mr. Swanson has laid it out clearly and accurately, but we didn't have to wait until months into Obama's Presidency to see it. The direction he would take started to become clear after he wrapped up the Democratic nomination and began backpedaling towards the so called center. The progressives refused to see or believe what was going on but it is undeniable now.

Give Obama credit for at least trying with health care and a few other issues, but otherwise Obama is truly implementing Bush's third term, almost as if he has no choice.

[itsjustanillusion]

Stay the course Mr. President, everything will be fine.

[killmenow]

I am stunned by that comment. That has got to be one of the most vapid comments I've ever seen posted on this site. We have to examine and monitor that administration of our government. We can't just rest in our comfort level with blinders on and assume that things will take care of themselves in the end.

[Drdemocrat]

Big Yawn....

[killmenow]

That's it? Nothing more to say? No explanation for that? Nothing to contribute? Then why post?

[thesimulacra]

My prediction: Some kind of Health Care bill passes, and he finally moves on these things. I'm saying that as a non-partisan. Unlike my friends who are dyed-in-the-wool progressives, I never really saw Obama as some kind of a transcendental force for progressivism. He's a "reasonable" person. And lets face it: our stupid system of government is not in any way related to "reason". Say what you want to about the guy, whether you agree with him or no, but he's not an idiot. On the contrary, the guy is incredibly savvy and intelligent, and he knows that without as much support as possible, health care isn't going to get passed. Politics in America (and really, the world) is never about "Give me everything we voted for, right now", because that's by design impossible. It's about priorities.

P.S. The link about signing statements is irritating. Who trusts a guy who refers to him repeatedly as "The Emperor"? He just sounds like another looney on a soap box. Also, every president this last half-century has made signing statements. The problem with Bush wasn't that he was making signing statements. It was that he managed to rack up more signing statements in his first four years in office than every previous president COMBINED. There's a huge, huge, difference and ignoring that is being willfully ignorant and manipulative with facts.

[killmenow]

I don't think it's ethical to assume that a politician has a secret agenda to do what is right and moral and expected of him later on after he continues on with the nefarious stuff. If he has the intent to move on a more moral path as President later on, then he has to tell us that. I will not make that assumption and just trust any politician to take the right path later on. The time is now.

[Manx]

Brilliant! Obama hooked me with all the grand promises and inspiring oratory. If he were a product, he could be sued for false advertising. What a let down. I have morphed from an enthusiastic supporter to someone who is now irritated by his sight and sound on TV, with all the smooth, slick, empty rhetoric. However, with Bush, I often wanted to throw something at the TV.

[VegasWolf]

I feel pretty similar. Hell, I was even a statewide delegate for Obama in our caucus system. Not next time at this rate.

[clevelandchick]

I'm right there with ya Manx. I've come to the realization there is no difference between the two parties. Rahm Emmanuel made sure of that.

I almost dislike Obama more than I did Dubya. At least with Dubya, you knew for a fact where he stood. You knew he was lying to you. Obama duped everyone, if I'd have wanted Republican-lite I'd have at least voted my identity and supported Hillary so we'd have the first female president. Not that I think she'd be any different than Obama right now...I think she'd be doing the exact same things. Like I said, Dem or Repub...no difference.

[Helzapoppin]

Perfect

[killmenow]

What's perfect??

[citizen of the universe]

Nice article but the question I have is when did we become so impatient? Eight months is hardly enough time to make a significant impact when EVERY element of our government has been tainted. There isn't an area in government that has been tainted, coerced and manipulated to guarantee the outcome of one political group. My problem is that I have no patience, but I realize that it is going to take time to fix everything, I thought Obama would get 4 years to do it, but at this rate I think we only deserve to have him for one term. The "rush" to judgment on Obama is phenomenal and sad to say typical. IMO, this country is determined to repeat the mistakes of the past, but this time it will be more violent and we the people will only have ourselves to blame.

[Helzapoppin]

for the gazillionth time, the objection is not about TIME it's about DIRECTION.

[VegasWolf]

Exactly, and leadership skills vs oratory skills.

[clevelandchick]

Thank you....I'm sick of hearing this 'give him time' schtick, he's following the wrong policies and time isn't going to change that.

[Gib]

Obama had all the time he needed to make the decisions he's already made. Read the article to see what those decisions were. What is there to be patient for?
"this country is determined to repeat the mistakes of the past" which is precisely Swanson's point - Obama is repeating Bush's mistakes. We can debate the reasons, but the facts are, unfortunately, plain.

[Chumleysmom]

"Read it 'n weep" has never been more apropos.

I and some of my friends picked up on the red flags early into Obama's presidency. So we've already experienced the disbelief and disappointment that come with the realization that we were betrayed, that he probably never intended to fulfill many of the promises (or implications) he made in all those lofty campaign speeches.

Thanks, David. A magnificent essay.

[Rule Of Law]

# Five Stages Of Grief

* 1. Denial and Isolation.
* 2. Anger.
* 3. Bargaining.
* 4. Depression.
* 5. Acceptance.

What stage are the faithful in now?

[Chumleysmom]

Acceptance isn't an option.

[lyra201]

i am still in stage one. but. i can be found blogging stage three and stage four stuff. help. i am one of those progressives who projected much onto obama despite the evidence that he is a centrist. i still hope things will change drastically. it is early, as one poster wrote here. but all this war stuff is devastating. i feel sad that the popularity of the first few months was in some part wasted maybe; i wanted progressive stuff to happen. now i don't know what is happening. it is a scary time.

[altohone]

I'm with Mr. Swanson on this.

President Obama, prove us wrong... please.

[pdxsean]

FTW

I was very much behind Obama last year, and cut him a lot of slack for his first several months... but things have been so much the same that I've lost my hope and am now ready to just drop out altogether. If we're doomed, I might as well enjoy the bliss of the ignorant...

[killmenow]

Don't drop out. Find another party or expect one in the near future.

[jalex26000]

This is a great article!

[Rule Of Law]

Did this just go up here on hp? I can't believe the faithful have not descended on it.

But you raise a significant question--if in an albeit oblique manner: Was Obama's selection as a Democratic President merely a tactic meant to appease the progressives, of which I am one--while maintaining the status quo of the last 8 years in all the areas that you delineated?

If that is within the realm of possibility, then the next question is: who would have the power to orchestrate such a charade and to what ultimate end?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this question David.

[killmenow]

I think that you should read up on some of Glenn Greenwald's recent pieces on Salon. According to his thinking, which seems so plausible to me, this is all about Rahm Emmanuel and the DNC's strategy simply to divert any and all corporate money from the Republicans to the Democrats.

All of these policies and the direction of this administration aren't so much about administering the government of the country as it is about party politics and party power. The answer: despite whatever coming Supreme Court decision on the issue, any and all corporate and business money has got to get entirely out of our politics. Government is only to represent individual American people, not legal entities regarded as persons by a corrupt court.

Until we have entirely publicly-financed campaigns, our government will be of, for and by only the multi-national corporate interests whose one and only motive is profit at the expense of anything and everything to do with our national interests and the interests of our people and their families.