Because you think that his perpetuating American social problems will lead to some sort of socialist revolution perhaps?
There is not going to be any socialist revolution in your country in the foreseeable future. And just to make that 100% clear, while revolutions are sometimes
necessary evils, that failed and exploitative system that goes by the name of capitalism should preferably be changed to one more democratic, humane and advanced by peaceful means if possible.
Anyway, socialism is the Godot of the USA.
Reality and my profession have forced me to learn more about your county's present and past than I really would like to, and frankly the level of its political maturity is so low (just look at this absurd show which you call the presidental election) that I am afraid you will be stuck with the republicrats for a while. Perhaps in 100 years, it will be ready for old-fashioned social democracy.
But of course, social unrest is usually a good thing in aggressive, interventionistic states, since it sometimes forces them to concentrate more on domestic matters.
However this one is quite close;
Let me guess. You say that because Bush is hurting the US, thus he's good in your eyes?
For once you are partly right.
Granted I find Boy King George (hereafter referred to as BKG) to be a totally loathsome individual. He strikes me as being just a typical upper class twit of that disgusting type one can find in certain English novels, born with a silver foot in his mouth (unfortunately I didn't coin that term myself), having got everything in his life handed to him on a silver platter and being ignorant, narrow-minded and completely indifferent to the people living in less privileged circumstances than himself and his friends. In fact he is so repulsive that I sometimes almost catch myself missing the Gipper...
However, when scrutinizing his politics one finds that he differs from his predecessors rather more in form and quantity than in substance and quality. He is worse than most of them but only marginally so.
Which brings me to my points (yes I admit it, I am fond of the crime novels of Boris Akunin).
First of all, he has revealed the ugly face of US imperialism in a way that we who have struggled against it for decades never managed to. US atrocities abroad is not exactly a new concept, but the complete lack of charm, civilty, diplomatic touch and communicative abilities among him and his gang of recycled Reaganites has alienated USA from people who usually would love to be the pink lapdogs of Uncle Sam (there are quite a few of this type to be found on this board even). The "damage" created here might be difficult to repair. That is point one.
Also, let's look at it from a different angle. I regard USA as an oligarchy, effectively ruled by Big Business. In such a system, the president is first and foremost the representant of the ruling class. They bring him to power (so far it has only been a "him" and it will remain so after November 2008), and he looks after their interest. BKG has been pretty good here; by among other things cutting their taxes, stealing Iraq's oil, and working for the implementation of a police state.
That is point two.
And related to that, apparently there are so many individuals in the USA whose concerns of the plights of the rich are only matched by their fear of "communism". They could hardly have wished for a better man as their Great Leader. That is point three.
So consequently, if I was Immanuel Kant, I would have given BKG one point. However I am not Kant, and as much as I respect him (Kant that is, not BKG), I believe that it is necessary to be more cynical in regard to contemporary politics, and then from my evil communist perspective the worst president ever might very well turn out to be the best...
Congress cannot impeach and remove him unless one party had a far larger majority than has existed in years. Even when the Republicans impeached Clinton, they could not muster the votes to remove him. As long as Congress is partisan and divided, the president's power is an extremely difficult thing to reign in if he refuses to comply with the law. And Bush has never had much interest in complying with any law he didn't like.
