I’m beginning to notice a pattern here. If you’re seeking public office in a foreign democracy, enjoying “strong ties” to the Bush administration will not exactly put you on a path to success. Around the world, a relationship with Bush has proven to be a liability, not a strength.
In Germany, the Schroeder government managed to eke out a victory by vociferously distancing itself from Bush and his policies.
In Brazil, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva became president of South America’s largest country by running, in part, on an anti-Bush platform.
In South Korea, the Uri party’s sweeping success — which marked the “sharpest shift to the political left in four decades” — was due in part to the party’s total opposition to Bush.
In Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, one of Bush’s closest international allies, lost a stunning defeat earlier this year. As Ivo Daalder explained, “The Spanish election was a referendum not only on Aznar but on Bush as well. They both lost.”
Today, we see the world’s largest democracy offering yet another example of a country tilting to the left and away from a leader with close Bush ties.
In a stunning upset, the Hindu nationalist-led coalition that has governed India for the last five years conceded defeat Thursday after early parliamentary election results pointed to a clear win by the secular opposition alliance led by India’s Congress Party.
Granted, India’s elections did not center around Vajpayee’s relationship with Bush, but nevertheless, it’s yet another leader with close ties to Bush getting replaced with a more liberal government, much to the administration’s chagrin.
We also hear today our closest ally is on the brink of losing his job because of his support for Bush.
Tony Blair’s unswerving support for President Bush over Iraq is doing extensive damage to the British prime minister’s standing at home and could even lead to his resignation, according to politicians, analysts and polls.
Opposition politicians and critics within his ruling Labor Party are hammering away at the government over allegations that it failed both to properly investigate accusations that British troops have mistreated Iraqi prisoners and civilians and to raise with its U.S. allies accusations about American misconduct.
Blair’s cabinet ministers have contradicted one another over how the government dealt with a confidential report by the International Committee of the Red Cross about the abuses. And new polls indicate that the government could sustain big losses in elections for local government and the European Parliament next month as voters punish Blair over Iraq.
All of these problems have helped fuel a new round of speculation about Blair’s future, with some colleagues in the House of Commons suggesting that he may feel compelled to step down this summer and turn over the reins to the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown.
When John Kerry talks about Bush having tarnished America’s reputation around the world, he’s actually being restrained. Throughout the post-WWII era, foreign leaders used to promote their bonds with the United States as a sign of strength and credibility. We were a beacon of hope that countries were anxious to be associated with. Not anymore.
Having so many elections in which Bush’s friends are losing in part because they are Bush’s friends damages our country in immeasurable ways. This administration may be passively disinterested in developing closer ties with the rest of the world, but these election outcomes are making the decision for him — they are encouraging candidates to run on platforms that promise a greater distance between them and us.
I realize that the causal link here is less-than-solid. Countries elect leaders on issues of direct relevance to their countries more so than Bush. But with so many Bush allies losing in so many countries, one begins to realize that our standing in the world is getting worse and our alliances are fraying because of who sits in the White House.