Fears of a World Divided

Fears of a World Divided

Disillusionment is the most painful of emotions.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

London

Disillusionment is the most painful of emotions. For many Europeans who wanted to see George Bush’s first presidency as an aberration in America’s history, his win on November 2 will confirm a frightening truth: More than half of US voters really do wish to live in a fortress of solipsism, a faith-based bubble indifferent to the rest of the world except insofar as America needs it to maintain its oil-based lifestyle. If, as some people suggested, all of us out here whose lives will be affected by the US election had had a chance to vote, the outcome would have been quite different. A couple of weeks before the election, a newspaper survey of public opinion in ten countries, including Russia and Britain, found that respondents, by a 2-to-1 margin, wanted a Kerry victory. In Europe, only the Poles hoped to see Bush elected. (Of course, many Israelis are also happy–to quote Sharon, “Bush is the best friend Israel ever had”–although few Palestinians had any illusions about what they could hope for from the Democrats.)

Inevitably the postelection media were full of tactful equivocations, brave faces and the search for silver linings. Perhaps G.W. Bush II will be different from G.W. Bush I; perhaps he will see the need to heal the rifts he has opened up, in the world as well as in America; perhaps a concern for his place in history rather than the next election will induce him to take global warming seriously. But as they talk about their hopes, the radio pundits–conservatives as well as social democrats–sound as if they’re still rooting for Kerry, for a President who, in the words of one British Foreign Office insider, would change, if not the policies, at least “the atmospherics.”

But if most of Europe’s people are depressed and disappointed, some of their leaders are privately relieved. Germany’s Gerhard Schröder and France’s Jacques Chirac will not now have to figure out how to say no to Kerry when he asks for help in Iraq. Tony Blair will not be the last of the Iraq triumvirate in power, and seems to imagine that he can cash in his chips with the White House to restart the Middle East peace process. There are signs that, having paid his dues in Washington, he may try to mend fences in Europe: Britain is already in talks with France, Germany and Iran about Iran’s nuclear program and will probably side with Europe against the United States on a French push to lift an EU arms embargo against China. But Europe itself is riven with disagreements on everything from finance to foreign policy, and those who hope to use Bush’s election as a catalyst for unity will have their work cut out for them.

From here, the most frightening thing about Bush’s victory is the prospect of a world divided between warring fundamentalisms, with Europe in the middle struggling to hold on to its Enlightenment legacy. On the day after the US election the second-biggest story in several European newspapers was the murder in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh, a deliberately provocative filmmaker whose latest work dramatized the abuse of a Muslim woman. The film was scripted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who has become a right-wing, anti-immigrant MP; van Gogh’s killer was a young man with dual Dutch and Moroccan nationality. The messianic clash-of-civilizations rhetoric coming from the White House only sharpens tensions like these. On the morning after the election, Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to Washington, spoke with undiplomatic plainness on the BBC: “If I was Osama bin Laden, which fortunately I’m not, I would be wanting at this moment to help Bush.”

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x