Is President George W. Bush on easy street? Does the success of the war on terror make him immune from criticism? The Democrats' single biggest issue right now is trying to get Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge to testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Needless to say, the voters aren't up in arms. As it turns out, Bush may have to worry more about being attacked from the right than the left. Since the beginning of the year, the president has gone back on three promises, which has angered conservatives. First, Bush announced that he would provide protectionist tariffs for the steel industry. This went against claims he made in the past that he supports free trade across the board. The move may have helped to secure electoral votes from Pennsylvania and West Virginia in 2004, but it angered free traders here at home and cost us credibility worldwide.
Second, Bush signed the campaign finance reform bill, which enjoyed heavy support from Democrats and rabid resistance from conservative Republicans. The bill contained few if any of the measures Bush wanted, but he signed it anyway fearing a backlash from both the public and the fiery co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. John McCain. Conventional political wisdom suggests that it will take more than soft money to bring Bush down, but it is likely that despite reservations about the constitutionality of the bill, he secretly knew that the new emphasis it places on hard money donations will help his reelection bid.
The third and most recent about-face has to do with our policy regarding Israel and Palestine. Even before terrorists attacked the United States, Bush's Middle East policy included a refusal to intervene heavily in the peace process unless PLO leader Yasser Arafat cracked down on the terrorist elements of his own organization and others. Bush was criticized for his hands-off approach, but he stuck to it. After Sept. 11 he reemphasized the need for Arafat to condemn suicide bombings. Although Mr. Arafat has not done so, Colin Powell is on his way to the region and it appears he will meet with the Palestinian leader. This development is Bush's most alarming flip-flop, because it goes against his own "Bush doctrine," which states that everyone in the world is either with us or with the terrorists. According to this doctrine, Arafat, by failing to condemn terror or make an effort to stop it, is a terrorist himself. As recently as last week Arafat applauded a teenage girl who killed herself and two Israelis, calling her a martyr.
According to the Bush doctrine, Arafat is "against us" and "with the terrorists," and we should wholeheartedly support Israel's right to defend itself by any means necessary as long as its police operations do not target innocent women and children, as the Arabs do. Instead of invoking this policy, which provided us so much comfort during the difficult times last fall, Bush showed us that he does not truly subscribe to his own doctrine in all cases. His press secretary, when asked about the lack of consistency in the administration's policy, answered directly yet disappointingly that the situation Middle East is different. I question why it is different. A terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of how he goes about killing innocent people.
It would be unfair to say that Bush's move towards a more active role in the Middle East has no benefits. It gives us more credibility in our dealings with the Arab world (though short of our assassinating the prime minister of Israel they are likely to continue hating us). It also endears us to the rest of the world, most of which supports the Palestinians. Most importantly, we are the only ones who have a chance to stop the bloodshed. If this is indeed our reason for going, however, one has to question exactly why we waited until now. The answer lies in our desire to seek approval from as many Arab states as we prepare to invade Iraq.
Over most of the past year the American people have received honesty and clarity from the White House, two things they had not gotten in many years. There is no doubt that the chief reason Mr. Bush is president today is because most people thought he was more trustworthy than his opponent. It was Bush's moral clarity after Sept. 11 that caused most Americans to rally around him and support his cause. Now we are hearing doublespeak from an administration we need to trust. On many issues, most Americans do not see eye to eye with the president. But people can admire a leader they disagree with so long as they are convinced that he follows his convictions and is honest with the people he governs.
If President Bush came out and said we were involving ourselves in the Middle East to help ensure success in toppling Saddam Hussein, I think most of us would support him. He may gain credibility abroad by engaging in the Middle East, but his claiming to have a sincere interest in resolving the conflict after shying away from serious involvement for over a year will cost him credibility here at home.
