HOME	Where the World's Views of America Come into Focus

By Humberto de la Calle
Feb. 18, 2005

Original Article (Spanish)

I already know that the easiest thing to do is to attack Bush. And with good reason. First, his religious fundamentalism. That blind opposition to experimentation with stem cells, his attitude against abortion, and rampant homophobia. All of it is excessive and, at the same time, incoherent. It seems improbable that the same leader who sets out to export freedom to all, is the one that within his own borders tries to drown out all signs of tolerance, a tolerance that has been the great achievement of the American political system.

As incoherent as all of this is, Bush proclaims himself a defender of life while offering meager funding for genetics research and prohibiting the use of embryos, knowing full well that every day patients die who might be cured if the American government changed its opinion.

It is also easy to attack Bush on Guantanamo, and as a champion of unilateralism, fighting preventive wars on a case-by-case basis and on the basis of motivations.

All that is certain. And with the recent designation of his new cabinet members, instead of reversing these trends, it seems as though we can expect more of the same.

It is easy also to attack him by mentioning his incapacity with language, although I must confess that the book of 'Bushisms,' a deplorable collection of his verbal mistakes, has disappointed to me.

In a situation like this, it is inevitable that the attacks on Bush carry lots of ideological baggage, which has prevented us from seeing some successes in the middle of an otherwise dark panorama.

In his first term, he got what he wanted. Elections in Iraq mean progress toward a less undemocratic system than was extant during the horrific reign of Hussein. People forget that a Sunni minority of 20% directed the country, annulling the rights of the Shiite majority and the Kurds, dealing harshly with women and the weak, and abusing the citizens.

Now the situation has been reversed, and the Shia have gained, which at least better reflects the reality of the country. Secondly, some Shiite clergymen have proposed a new political regime that, although inspired by the Koran, excludes excessive Islamic fundamentalism.

Under these conditions, Bush legacy could be a good one, if he finds a scheme that attenuates the situation that existed before the fall of Saddam, however far removed from true democracy that may be.

The changes in Israel and Palestine also allow hope that under the leadership of the United States, a peaceful resolution to a conflict that is the motor of all violence in the Near East is possible.

And, finally, the trip of Condoleezza [Rice] to Europe has begun to reestablish Washington's friendship with the Old Continent. It is not strange to us, then, when, despite all of his defects, Bush may leave a better world behind him when his mandate is over. Or at least less bad. History sometimes pushes paradox upon us.