The Star Online （http://www.thestar.com.my）
The silent conflict, 4 November 2008
The 2008 US presidential election is a clash within the Western civilisation.
SINCE the United States is the leading superpower of our time, the American presidential election always generates interest around the world.
However, those who are conscious of the implications of the outcome of the 2008 election see it as no less than a referendum on the future of not just the United States of America, but of the direction of the Western civilisation.
In the 1999 Republican primaries during a live TV debate in Iowa, the contenders were asked “what political philosopher do you most identify with and why?”
Different candidates mentioned different names, but George W. Bush’s response took everybody by surprise. David Aikman in his book A Man of Faith writes that Bush, without any hesitation replied “Christ”, “because he changed my heart.”
Elaborating on this he further said, “When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that’s what happened to me.”
Since the American constitution establishes a clear separation of church and state – politicians have always kept their faith as a private and personal matter and have not used it to define themselves and their ideas in the political arena.
The mixing of religion and politics is seen as a threat to the harmony of the society. It was for this reason that until 1962 no Catholic became the US president because Catholics are required to follow the Catholic teachings and the Pope’s instructions in all walks of their lives.
John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic to be elected as the US president. He succeeded after promising that he would not involve his faith in running the country as its president.
Given this historical background, Bush’s answer was radical but timely as he was counting on the rising tide of Christian fundamentalism in the country.
During the eight years (1992-2000) of Clinton-Gore administration the US economy had consistently enjoyed high growth and employment with low inflation. Hence Gore, in his campaign, continuously emphasised these achievements and promised more of the same, if elected.
Knowing that he could not refute the argument on the solid performance of the economy under the eight-year long Democratic administration, Bush exploited the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair and made integrity, credibility and trustworthiness of the leadership as the main issue in the campaign and promised the nation to be a trustworthy leader.
In the early phase of the Republican primaries when he lost to John McCain in New Hampshire, Bush made a pilgrimage to South Carolina’s Bob Jones University, the ultra Christian Fundamentalist University in the world.
There, in his speech, he emphasised his commitment to Christian fundamentalist values and world view. The deal was sealed. The support of the Christian fundamentalist vote bank of the southern states (known as the Bible belt of America) carried Bush into the White House.
The nation and the world had expected Bush to be true to his promise and deliver an administration based on integrity, trustworthiness and transparency.
However, his administration has delivered quite the opposite. The fabrication of false evidence to invade Iraq not only diverted the world’s attention and resources from the pursuit of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, but also allowed the al-Qaeda to regroup and make the situation difficult for Pakistan.
The false pretext of Iraq invasion created a rift between Europe and the United States. The Western civilisation which had looked up to the United States as its leader is so resentful of America today that at every opportunity it tries to get away even from the shadow of the United States.
Examples are countless: Tony Blair, the blind follower of Bush, was ousted by his own party despite the fact that he is the only leader in British history who led the Labour Party to three consecutive election victories. His sin: blind support for Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and everything that followed from it.
When the banking system of Iceland collapsed in the current subprime loans crisis, the country needed billions of dollars in financial assistance. Iceland is one of the founding members of Nato and during the Cold War Americans had a military base there, due to which there were tensions between the Soviet Union and Iceland.
Yet Iceland, needing financial assistance urgently, did not ask the United States and its rich allies for help – instead it turned to its historic adversary, Russia, for help. This is the extent of Western civilisation’s loss of confidence in the United States under the administration of Bush which has been led by a Christian fundamentalist world view and the neocon ideologues.
The widely known historian, Samuel Huntington in his book The Clash of Civilizations argues that each strong civilisation is led by a core state.
The United States has been the core state of the Western civilisation since WWII. However, its loss of integrity under the Bush-Cheney administration has weakened its moral authority within the Western civilisation substantially.
The 2008 US presidential election is not just the fight for the presidency: it is in principle a fight for the soul of the Western civilisation in the 21st century.
・Dr Muhammad Arif Zakaullah teaches in the Department of Economics, International Islamic University Malaysia. He is the author of two books: The Cross and the Crescent: The Rise of American Evangelicalism and the Future of Muslims, and Religion and Politics in America.
・1995-2008 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)
（End）
