Wow, where to start. The US election has been quite a show as viewed from across the Atlantic, it looked like it might descend into farce again but ultimately Bush won by a clear majority, which at least puts all of the allegations of dirty tricks to bed. I found Kerry's concession speach quite moving, I think there was almost a tear in his eye at one point when he talked about taking everyone in his arms, and how he had taken on board the struggles of all of the people he had met on his journey.

Bush's speech was IMO less spectacular, essentially repeating the call for unity from four years ago. The trouble with this is that Bush's general approach to political issues is to take a position, probably based on his religious faith and his advisers, and to deeply entrench himself in that position without really debating the issues or considering the alternative viewpoints. In that respect he leads very much like a medieval monarch, in that deep down I suspect that he believes he has divine right to rule. The logic goes something like this; God works in mysterious ways, I have become leader of a powerful country by whatever means, therefore God must have meant this to be. And then the scary bit is; if god wanted me to be leader then my viewpoints must be the correct ones, and thus everyone elses viewpoint is wrong. Henry VIII took this doctrine to an extreme by splitting with the Catholic church and adopting protestantism and thus changing history - mainly because he just wanted to get a divorce :)

Far fetched? Whether you agree with the analysis or not, it is a point of record that Bush selects a position and sticks to it, and if no-one else shares that position, which is often the case, then that is their problem. Kyoto, Iraq and Israel/Palestine being notable examples. The same pattern is also repeated in his governance of Texas - the policies he adopted out of his black and white viewpoint on teenage pregnancy resulted in Texas having the fifth highest teenage STD and pregnancy rates in the US in 2000.

One thing I will concede is that I have arrived at the opinion that the idiot image of Bush is not accurate. There are times when his performances are dire, for confirmation look no further than the first presidential debate or his personal message to the Iraqi survey group. But on other days he performs well in front of a crowd, he tells them what they want to hear and makes the right signals. His policies *are* backed with an intellectual rigour, the problem being IMO, that the viepoints and logic that underpin the intellectual analysis are wrong, and quite fundamentally so in some cases.

As powerful as the US is it cannot control everyone, and therefore in the long term his entrenchment tactic will probably cause more divisions in the world as a whole which in term will generate bad will and possibly more terrorists. More significantly he risks creating a bipolar political and economic world in which the US inhabits a lonely political space distinct from and at odds with China, Europe and Asia. In an odd twist of fate it's possible that Russia could become the USA's closest friend - the emerging run-away capitalism coupled with the a non-invasive legal framework is not disimilar to the political and economic environment that gave birth to the idea of the 'American Dream'.

My final and perhaps most important point is that of economic management. The economy was of course an issue in the recent debates but it was never center stage, which arguably it should have been. The main points made were that the US economy is strong and that employment is steady (actually slightly down, but still high). The problem is that this success level has been achieved on the back of massive borrowing. Under Bush the US has been spending more money than it has, right now both the US government and consumers are overspending by about 3% per anum. In short the US consumes more than it produces. The gap is filled by borrowing from foreign nations. At some point in the future this debt will need to be repaid, which means cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, which in turn will likely put the breaks on economic development. If the debt continues to increase at the rate it has done over the last four years then economic realities will set in - the value of the dollar will fall further, thus making foreign produce (that the US imports a lot of) relatively more expensive, which again has a detrimental effect on the US economy and the US people's overall quality of life. It is my opinion that if this sole issue is not addressed soon that it will result in the Republicans loosing the next election. Clinton you will recall balanced the books well thus affording Bush a considerable economic leeway, but that leeway surely cannot last another four years without serious economic implications.