In the wake of the Democrats' victory in America, Ashraf El-Bayoumi* assesses the implications, and warns against Democrats becoming neo-cons Analysis of the Egyptian public's reaction to the recent US congressional elections yields a spectrum of responses. These range from the assumption that the elections make no difference to "Us", to elation that the Democrats' victory will transform US policies. Beyond such contradictory views, reactions in Egypt generally reflect limited knowledge of the US political system, its complexities, subtleties, and dynamics. Selected translated articles are far from helpful in this regard and only contribute to the propagation of the political biases of their original authors. No light is shed on the relationship between the US system of governance and the global power structure of our age of Empire and neo-liberal globalisation. Understanding US politics is not a mere academic exercise but a necessity; the US is a hegemonic global power seeking to tighten its grip on the entire world. Thus, it is imperative that we understand the meaning of major events in the US, including the recent elections. If the Arab rulers understood well the intricacies of US policies, perhaps some distaters, such as the 1967 war or the invasion of Kuwait, could have been avoided. Three basic assumptions guide this analysis: -That domestic and foreign policies are closely linked together, particularly in a globalised world; -That analysis should not only be "informed', but also dynamic and subject to continuous refinement. Static, one- dimensional analytical orientations or monolithic assumptions are limiting and often result in neglect of relevant matters; -That the consequences of important events transcend the immediate outcome, extending to events precipitated by the dynamics set in motion by the original transformative development. Last week, the American people dealt a tremendous blow to President Bush and the Republican Party. Not unexpectedly, the voters effectively reduced the president's unprecedented executive powers. These had been expanded after 11 September under the pretext of fighting international terrorism. The Republicans, who controlled both the House and the Senate, with the complicity of the minority Democratic Party, gave President Bush authority to wage war whenever and wherever he chose. This, in addition to the backing of a rightist Supreme Court that had handed him his first presidency, as well as support by a majority of State Houses and governors, led to (as Senator Robert Byrd has repeatedly stated) such concentration of power which contradicts the principle of checks and balances that is pivotal to the US Constitution. What made such concentration of power particularly dangerous is that a small group of individuals with an ideological agenda -- the neo-conservatives -- dominated the decision making process. The dominance of this arrogant group of men, who have nothing but contempt for traditional conservative Republicans, was supported by an aggressive or accommodating corporate media, and wrapped in the holy garb of religious evangelists. In matters of Foreign Policy, the neo-conservatives have exhibited an insatiable appetite for waging wars (which would be the envy of Dr No), unabashed racism, determination to control the world, and utter disregard for human life and values. By contrast to the G W Bush "Presidential Dictatorship" the immediate outcome of mid-term congressional elections is a head of state cut down to size: a lame duck. Bush now has support from congressional minority, and could easily face impeachment if the Democratic majority were to act on the sentiment of the voters, not to mention an earlier documented statement to that effect by the now forgiving/ magnanimous new House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi herself. Now, the Democrats will chair all committees in the new Congress, despite the fact that their majority in the Senate is only razor thin. Nevertheless and overall, the outcome of the elections represents a significant power shift towards upholding the prescript of checks and balances. Another point often overlooked is the importance of the Democrats' new won control of State level legislation, as state Houses have the power to delineate congressional districts. But, for all the change, this does not mean that President Bush and the neo-liberals in both political parties (equally beholden to corporate largesse) have lost the power to continue with their agenda. Rather, it means that the President has to maneuver politically and use his executive powers as a leverage to advance his domestic and foreign policy priorities. And it is important here to emphasise the fact that Democrats, and to a lesser extent Republicans, constitute heterogeneous entities with varying constituencies and priorities. The labels "liberal" and "conservative" are too general and do not explain how issue- specific derivative actions are. There are, for example, Democrats who will support the President on a number of issues (on the so-called Greater Middle East, Democrats Lantos and Lieberman will surely support Bush). Both Lantos and Lieberman are ardent Zionists, as their record of unwavering support of Israel demonstrates. Although it is still too early to venture a comprehensive analysis of the vote, certain inclinations are already discernible. For example, the African- American voting pattern is consistent with the evolution of a protest movement in opposition to the Bush administration's overtly manifest racism in its handling of hurricane Katrina. Young voters' turn to Democrats is understandable in terms of the growing uncertainties about future employment opportunities. For Catholics, the shift towards the liberal party seems to be partially motivated by moral and ethical considerations, particularly in key states such as Ohio. Among Jewish voters, who are traditionally Democratic Party loyalists, there has not been a recognisable shift. As for Latinos, the preference for Democrats reflects widespread dissatisfaction; the majority wants to bring the troops home. Preliminary analysis of the elections, particularly the voting on several initiatives, also indicates that the American electorate did not shift to the left. The vote was against current policies, including the Iraq war (the immorality of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo officially-sanctioned torture, and the illegality of a war from which voters have repeatedly called for withdrawal), but it was also a vote against corruption, and against inefficiency, ineptness and neglect, which are prominently exemplified by the Katrina fiasco. As exit polls clearly demonstrate, voters are not only against the conduct of the war on Iraq as Bush is attempting to imply, but are also against the whole dominant political system. Their loss of confidence in this political system prompted nearly sixty per cent of the electorate not to vote. Whether active or passive, the American people's rejection of the Bush policies has opened the doors for the presumably more liberal Democratic Party -- a party which has been competing with the conservatives for years now, imitating them and playing on their turf. Now the time has come for the Democrats to demonstrate to the American people that they are better suited to serve the domestic needs and aspirations of the majority. It is not enough to force the resignation of Republican appointed officials such as Rumsfeld, or Bolton -- who is likely to be next. Neither is exposure of selected cases of corporate corruption a substitute for real Campaign Finance Reform -- a necessary reform if US politics were to be cleansed from corporate subversion of democracy. As for foreign policy, changing "the conduct of the war" on Iraq, or even opposition to the war, is hardly an appropriate anti-dote to US imperialism and unilateralism in this region and beyond. "Creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel," within the framework of the Israel-centred "New Middle East," is not an answer to apartheid, or a protection of the Palestinians' internationally enshrined rights of self- determination and. Equally unacceptable are the foreign constructed/ financed Orange Revolutions -- advocated as an anti-dote to dictatorial regimes -- and the equation of terrorism with resistance to occupation, be that resistance in Palestine, Iraq, or Lebanon. Meanwhile, and without doubt, an opportunity for change has been afforded by the recent US elections. How this opportunity will be used, remains to be seen. The newly elected majority Democrats have little time to act, given the fact that a year from now campaigns for presidential and congressional elections will begin. And in the absence of a third party that derives its power from the American people and not corporate financing, the prospects for major changes in US domestic and foreign policies remain limited. While the Bush doctrine has been dealt a blow, it is important to heed Professor Gary Leupp's advice against underestimating the tenacity of those committed to "the reconfiguration of the 'Greater Middle East' in ways that could benefit US imperialism." Reasoning that "Democrats can be neo- cons, too," Leupp counsels anti-war activists and others rejoicing in the wake of the Democrats' glorious victory to "keep the victors' feet to the fire". * The writer is a retired Professor of Chemistry and an Egyptian-American political activist.
