It's safe to say that if US President George W. Bush was in his first term, he would now be heading for defeat. Safe, because we will never know: He's in his second term and will never face the voters again.
That quirk in the US system, with its strict two-term rule, makes it hard to read the impact Hurricane Katrina will have on the Bush presidency. Nor is it much easier to tell how the disaster that drowned one of the US' best-loved cities will change the country itself. But both questions matter -- especially for a wider world that has come to learn that what happens in the US affects everyone.
Start with Bush himself. Weekend polls suggested 50-50 that the has once again split down the middle, with Bush opponents disapproving of his abysmal non-performance last week while Bush supporters stay loyal. That's heartened Republicans who were bracing themselves for much worse numbers.
They find further cheer in their belief that Bush bounces back in a crisis. Attacked for his immediate response to Sept. 11, he turned that calamity into the defining moment of his first term. Privately, conservatives also wonder how much sympathy white, suburban US -- the crucial middle ground all politicians covet -- will feel for Katrina's victims.
One close-up observer describes what he suspects is a widely-held -- if rarely articulated -- view of those left behind in New Orleans: "They lived in a silly place, they didn't get out when they should, they stole, they shot at each other and they shot at rescue workers."
If that's the view, then Bush won't suffer too badly.
Pessimistic Bushites see things differently. They reckon the sight of so many black Americans left destitute or dying while Washington idled will embarrass those same white suburban voters who, they say, feel uncomfortable at even a hint of racism. They also believe Bush and chief strategist Karl Rove can consign to the trash-can their long-term dream of peeling at least some African-American voters away from the Democrats.
Bush had scored some small successes in that direction: Now he can forget it. More directly, the charge of incompetence is deadly when applied to the White House: It could instantly diminish Bush, reducing him to a lame duck nearly two years ahead of schedule.
The most immediate test will be in his nominations for what are now two vacancies on the Supreme Court. He has made one choice already; if he feels obliged to nominate a liberal or centrist as his second, rather than the red-meat conservative he would have preferred, that will be proof that Katrina has hobbled him.
What of America itself? Since the country's founding, the US has oscillated between international engagement and isolationism.
Sometimes it wants to look outward, sometimes in. The hurricane may well put Americans in the latter mood. As they look at pictures of US troops toiling away in Iraq, many will surely think: What the hell are we doing there, when we have so much work to do right here at home?
Adrian Wooldridge, co-author with John Micklethwait of an excellent study of conservative America, The Right Nation, anticipates just such a sentiment.
"The big losers among Republicans will be the neocons," he says. "The hubris of thinking America could reshape the world, creating a democracy in hostile territory, when it can't even keep order in an American city -- that hubris has just been punctured in a big way."
Now it will be images of Katrina which are foremost in the public mind, replacing the four-year-old memories of Sept. 11. The "global war on terror" could well lose its place as the all-consuming, No. 1 priority.
Indeed, all previous assumptions are now up for grabs. Since former president Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, conservatives have won the argument for a shrunken state, one that taxes and spends less. That neoliberal model -- with its emphasis on privatization and deregulation -- has spread across the world, often imposed on countries that did not want it. It continues to split the EU, with France and others insisting that their own social model is superior.
Katrina has reopened that debate in neoliberalism's motherland. Suddenly progressive Americans detect an opening, a chance to speak up for active government, even for taxing and spending. The hurricane has made their case immediate and simple: You can only neglect the public realm for so long. Do so for a generation and the levees will break -- and an entire city will be washed away.
Still, it's not obvious that the progressives will prevail. For one thing, Bush is not quite the no-spend conservative we imagine.
The US government has actually expanded more under Bush than it did under former president Bill Clinton. It's not just defense and homeland security: Bush has spent billions in traditional areas, including education -- much to the ire of hardcore Reaganites.
Some of that cash has gone on building projects, usually in the pork-barrel schemes beloved of senators and congressmen keen to show they can bring home the federal bacon. The result, says Micklethwait, is that most of the country's infrastructural needs have been catered for, if only "accidentally." Louisiana may have suffered because its representatives did not have their snouts deep enough into the federal trough.
Advocates of government action have other problems. After Sept. 11, Democrats made a similar demand and won the new Department for Homeland Security as a result. That is the department now blamed for handling Katrina so badly.
The only success story of the last week has been the characteristic American outpouring of generosity from individuals, churches and others keen to help the needy. That has enabled the right to argue that it's these voluntary "armies of compassion" that get the job done, not central government.
The left has another impediment, one that has dogged its opposition to the Iraq war: a lack of leadership. There are few Democrats bold enough to step forward and make the post-Katrina case for an active, caring government. That's partly tactical -- Democrats reckon it's smarter to let Bush hang himself -- and partly because the party remains split, divided into modernizing and traditionalist camps.
The most likely result is that the US won't rethink the size of the state so much as its efficiency. Simple competence could become the key political virtue. Step forward Rudy Giuliani, whose post-Sept. 11 record contrasts so starkly with Bush's errors last week. His chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination for 2008 look better than ever.
There could also be a change in tone, with conservatives obliged to cool down the anti-government, low-tax rhetoric of old. On Wednesday the Senate was due to debate a cut in inheritance tax that would have delighted the super-wealthy: Mindful of the new mood, the Republicans quietly put it on ice.
Hurricanes toss everything into the air; how things settle afterwards is up to the people on the ground. A new political settlement will not come about by a simple act of nature -- it has to be fought for and won. And that process is just beginning.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under