A Suggestion For One General Test Of How Seriously A President Takes A War
Let me suggest this test:
The more a president pushes divisive domestic and international agendas, the less seriously he takes the war he is prosecuting.
I think we can agree to this test as a rule of thumb (that would require lots of ceteris paribus clauses). I'm not using this as a weapon of convenience to bash President Bush. Rather, it seems true to me in general.
However, if we apply this test to the current administration we have to conclude that, given the extreme divisiveness of their foreign and domestic policies, they do not take the war against terrorism very seriously. If they really wanted to win the war, and really believed that disunity is the only thing that will lose it for us, then they would work to achieve more unity.
As it stands, they are pushing divisive policies and then demanding that their domestic political opponents unite behind them. But compromise is a two-way street.
One might wish to unleash a pox on all houses concerned in this matter, but liberals and America's international allies DID unite behind President Bush immediately after 9/11, despite the fact that Bush had already done a good bit to alienate those groups. Again, however, the administration pursued divisive policies that have again generated bitter division between them and most of the rest of the civilized world. So it seems that the administration deserves the lion's share of the blame.
It would be interesting to go back and examine the records of previous war-time administrations to see how they acted in this regard. That would provide us with a bit of evidence against which to test the rule of thumb suggested above.
Let me suggest this test:
The more a president pushes divisive domestic and international agendas, the less seriously he takes the war he is prosecuting.
I think we can agree to this test as a rule of thumb (that would require lots of ceteris paribus clauses). I'm not using this as a weapon of convenience to bash President Bush. Rather, it seems true to me in general.
However, if we apply this test to the current administration we have to conclude that, given the extreme divisiveness of their foreign and domestic policies, they do not take the war against terrorism very seriously. If they really wanted to win the war, and really believed that disunity is the only thing that will lose it for us, then they would work to achieve more unity.
As it stands, they are pushing divisive policies and then demanding that their domestic political opponents unite behind them. But compromise is a two-way street.
One might wish to unleash a pox on all houses concerned in this matter, but liberals and America's international allies DID unite behind President Bush immediately after 9/11, despite the fact that Bush had already done a good bit to alienate those groups. Again, however, the administration pursued divisive policies that have again generated bitter division between them and most of the rest of the civilized world. So it seems that the administration deserves the lion's share of the blame.
It would be interesting to go back and examine the records of previous war-time administrations to see how they acted in this regard. That would provide us with a bit of evidence against which to test the rule of thumb suggested above.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:26 AM
3 Comments:
Your rule of thumb here suggests a certain affinity with the logic of Voltaire. I think that Hitler's approach to World War II was hardly one of "bringing Germany together." Yet who was more serious of purpose that Hitler re his war?
Many have thought that Bush started the war specifically to leave a legacy as a "War President," thinking that would lead to him being remembered as a great leader. I think that might have worked, if he had followed his own principle of being a "uniter, not a divider." Instead, he'll be remembered as one of the most ineffective leaders we have had. Elementrary school students will learn that he had to lowest approval ratings of any President, and that he permanently screwed up the balance of power in the Middle East.
Anonymous--if I'm not mistaken, you've misread the post. I didn't mention the *purpose* of the leader...this is a suggested test...but you raise an interesting point. I'd been thinking only of leaders of democracies, so that proviso has to be added.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home