"Raising the flag over the planet?"
A very worrying thought has occurred to me. It arose from trying to understand the unexpected but general malaise that has followed the elections in November when many Americans made such an emphatic anti-Bush statement, one which caused him to lose both Houses.
Ever since Christmas, Bush has continued to escalate the current conflict. Oil-rich Iran is now in his sights and nuclear weapons could well be used. But despite minor protests and rumblings, George marches on.
But if the American people are deeply unhappy with Bush as the vote clearly indicated why don’t they simply throw him out (as I have previously suggested). What is causing their inaction? Perhaps the answer is not that hard to find.
In previous articles I’ve already identified several groups of Americans. To quickly recap:
1. There are those who realise the damage that the Bush Administration has done to America’s image in the world. This group also comprehends the complete failure in Iraq and understands that attacking Iran will lead to an even greater catastrophe. This group is made up of genuine activists who actually ‘do’ things like attend anti-war protests, run anti-Bush blogs, write letters to members of Congress, etc. Unfortunately their numbers seem small.
2. Then there are those whose comprehension appears to be the same as those above but this group don’t actually do much more than to wring their hands and lament what has happened and express the hope that somehow, someone else or something else will fix the problem. But it certainly won’t be them!
3. Then there are the dedicated Republican Bush backers who would support Bush even if he turned out to be a serial killer or a vampire or an insane megalomaniac. Or all three!
After visiting many American blogs and after reading thousands of comments, now I suspect that there might be another group, perhaps a very large, though usually very silent group who secretly, in their heart of hearts, would be quite happy if America dominated the world. Are eyebrows being raised? Good.
I suspect there are many people in America who would love to be part of a nation that rules the world by force if necessary and they would happily grab whatever riches or advantages their domineering country might throw their way. They would care little about the inequality that might exist between them and much of the rest of the world (an inequality that commonsense tells us would guarantee endless war).
Now as someone who majored in psychology, I realise how difficult it would be identify and quantify this forth group. If you asked a person who belonged to this group, “Would you be happy if America dominated the world using force if necessary?” he or she would deny it completely. After all, it’s hardly something to be proud of. It seems to go against much of what non-Americans think that America stands for or, more correctly perhaps, once stood for!
But the point I’m making is that surely America could never have reached this position where, led by Bush and the Neocons, it threatens to dominate the world unless the bulk of the American people were supporting it (either actively or passively) and were quite happy to be seen as top dogs!
Similarly, Hitler couldn’t have made his run to dominate the world unless he’d had the backing of the bulk of the German people. There are many other examples in the history books of course. I hope I’m wrong but something tells me that I’m not.
Perhaps it’s human nature to want to be at the top of the hierarchy, survival of the fittest and all that. And yet such a purely selfish attitude means that conflict between nations, between races, between religions, will be endless and, eventually, if nuclear weapons enter the scene, terminal.
Do you think there is a large forth group in America? If not, how do you explain the relative inaction of the American people regarding Bush and the warmongering Neocons since Christmas?