America's Post Bush Era
Josh asked the blog about turning points in the Bush presidency that led us to our current state of affairs. I want to ask a similar question, but about the future instead of the past. BC stands for “Before Christ”, and AD is shorthand for the Latin phrase meaning “year of our Lord”. CE now indicates the “Christian Era”. What will we call the “Post Bush” era? PB 1, then PB 2, etc. etc.?
Whether you like the guy or not, (and most tpmcafe folks surely fit the ‘not’ category), ‘W’ looks like he’s going to leave one huge footprint on America’s future. His will be a certain kind of legacy likely to roil the waters for decades to come. So I’m curious, what’s your bet on where America will be in the year 2 PB? In 4 PB? Will we still be enmeshed in the GWOT? Will America still be hunkered down dodging terrorists and plummeting global poll numbers? Will there be a great turning inward by the American people? Maybe there will be a return to normalcy? Or maybe the Europeans will like us again and the Asians won’t? Or vice versa? Thoughts?
















I dislike making predictions, because I believe the very making of predictions tends to solidify currently discernable trends and perpetuate a fatalistic acceptance of them.
So rather than predict where we will be, I will only say where we might be if we don't do something about it.
In 2010, we might be bang in the middle of WWIII - and I'm not talking about figuarative wars, but the real thing. And it might be the case that in that year your children and my children are getting swallowed up into the great military leviathan up by Selective Service, and spat out upon numerous global shores to face their violent deaths.
Bush has brought the world to the precipice of global conflict. He has accelerated the quest for nuclear weapons, intensified the global competition for dwindling resources, increased tensions in just about every US relationship, fostered global political fragmentation and rivalry, spread disinformation, encouraged religious fundamentalism, heightened ideological divisions and spread a poisonous cloud of fanaticism and fear across the country. And on his way out, he may succeed in throwing the final switches that will bring these trends to their hideous final conclusion. The post-Bush era is not here yet. And by the time it gets here it might be too late - if we don't wake up.
What are all those ships doing in the Persian Gulf?
December 28, 2006 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a prediction:
Whoever gets into the White House will find out that Iran has been waiting for Bush to leave to announce they have Nuclear Weapons.
Here's another:
They will use them on Israel and be the "heroes" of the Middle East.
Here's another:
We won't respond in any real way. We'll pass a resolution condeming the act and then help the survivors relocate to Europe and America.
December 28, 2006 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This series goes moves quickly from the improbable to the ludicrous.
If Iran used a nuclear weapon on Israel out of the blue, we would certainly would respond very aggressively. And not just us, but the Europeans as well. The Russians and Chinese would fiercely condemn a vile and unprovoked assualt with nuclear weapons, an action which is at least as contrary to their interests as ours, and at the very least would not stand in the way of retaliation. They would probably pitch in in some way, and then negotiate with us over how best to divide up the oily sandbox where Iran used to be.
December 28, 2006 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A better question might be to trace and extend the footprint left by "the Great Buffoonicator," of whom GWB was the logical and predictable successor.
As in 1988, the United States of 2008 will be left with enormous interest payments due to a tripling of the national debt.
As in 1988, the right-wing elite will be whipping up resentment and anger among wealthy southern white men and their chattel.
As in 1998, a mental defective will be leaving office, disaster in his wake.
December 28, 2006 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
K J LIberal has the right perspective (pun intended). Think of it as a ball game. Josh and most of the others appear to have started this discussion thinking that we're just wrapping up the bottom of the 9th inning and Democrats have put the game away. I don't think we've even got to the 7th inning stretch.
Yes, we have done a good thing in this past year, makes me proud to be a Liberal. Yes, many former supporters are disappointed in Bush & Co. No, that does not mean it's over.
The underpinnings of movement conservatism are still strong, still in place, still swimming in money, still powerfully motivated, still dominant and still very well represented in government at all levels. There is a long struggle ahead of us.
December 28, 2006 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think CE is an acronym for "Common Era."
December 29, 2006 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The post-Bush era is not here yet.
Absolutely correct. There is no end of damage that this demented power-freak can cause in the next two years. I wouldn't put it past him to go to war with Iran over an explicit refusal by Congress.
December 29, 2006 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
They will use them on Israel and be the "heroes" of the Middle East.
Except they'll be dead. Israel has a lot more nuclear weapons than Iran will ever have. Do you really think these people are fools, just because they hate Israel?
This may be the most puerile piece of crap I have ever read on this site.
December 29, 2006 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much for the input. You are very sweet.
Just to clear up the sequencing of events, I was saying that Iran would hit Israel with Nuclear weapons FIRST. They have already stated they want to destroy Israel, in case you missed it.
How is a dead Israeli going to fire Nuclear weapons back? How are destroyed Nuclear launch pads going to launch a counter-attack?
Do you know what an EMP is? Do you know the disabling effects of one? Do you realize that cars and trucks may not even work in Israel after the effects of an EMP?
Do you actually believe that Iran wants nuclear energy to help operate traffic lights in Tehran? They want nuclear weapons. They want to destroy Israel. If they strike first, Israel will be devastated and unable to launch any counter-attack.
December 29, 2006 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink