Why the Uniter Divided Us

by E.J. Dionne, Jr. , Washington Post, January 19, 2009

There are many reasons why most Americans are not mourning President Bush's departure. But our new president would do well to concentrate on the deeper causes of the public's disaffection with the man headed to Texas.

From the very beginning of his presidency, won courtesy of a divisive Supreme Court decision that abruptly ended his contest with Al Gore, Bush misunderstood the nature of his lease on power, the temper of the country and the proper role of partisanship in our political life. His win-at-all-costs strategy in Florida became a template for much of his presidency, reflected especially in the way the Justice Department was politicized.

Bush did not respect the obligation of a leader in a free society to forge a durable consensus. He was better at announcing policies than explaining them. He dismissed legitimate opposition and plausible doubts about the courses he wished to pursue. It is partly because of these failures that Americans reacted by selecting a successor with such a profoundly different political personality.

Barack Obama's first response to a political problem is to offer a detailed analysis and put the challenge into some larger context. He loves sparring with his intellectual adversaries. And his "if you have a better idea, I'll take it" approach is the antithesis of the my-way-or-the-highway politics of the past eight years.

Bush was capable of considerable charm, but he never really engaged his opponents. He rolled over them. He did not try to win expansive electoral majorities. Instead, he sought to build a compact, ideologically pure coalition that he could use on behalf of dramatic conservative departures. He claimed mandates he did not have.

Maintaining long-term support for the Iraq war would have required him to do more than just push a resolution through Congress on the eve of a midterm election using political threats and campaign-trail rhetoric. "It's better to fight them there than here" was not an argument that took the average citizen's intelligence seriously. Cutting taxes rather than asking us to pay for the war suggested that while the president might ask others to sacrifice their priorities, he would never sacrifice his own.

Ironically, the clearest evidence of Bush's larger failure can be found in the areas where he can claim genuine success.

Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan and his No Child Left Behind education program were far from perfect. But they reflected broadly shared goals -- expanding health coverage, promoting accountability in education -- and involved actual bipartisan wrangling and negotiation. Aspects of both programs will endure.

Bush's dedication to the victims of AIDS in Africa and his dramatic increases in foreign aid were admirable, and they surprised his fiercest critics. In the final days, his supporters were touting these least typical of his achievements.

For a few months after Sept. 11, 2001, the president governed as a truly national leader. At that moment, we saw the consensus-builder he promised to be in 2000. He might have built a durable majority for his party on the basis of more moderate, consensual policies. Instead, he moved to ridiculing those who doubted the wisdom of his Iraq adventure and used the war on terrorism for electoral advantage.

A hyper-partisan domestic politics of us vs. them followed naturally from Bush's instinct to confuse moral certainty with moral clarity. In his farewell address, he declared yet again that "good and evil are present in this world, and between the two, there can be no compromise."

Yes, but the hardest moral decisions are usually not between good and evil but between competing goods (security vs. liberty) or lesser evils (a draining war in Iraq vs. a messy, long-term strategy to contain Saddam Hussein).

Our new president will make his own characteristic mistakes. He risks overestimating his capacity to persuade his most implacable foes. He may forget that a two-party system inevitably creates its own dynamic of loyalty and opposition.

But he is decidedly not an us-vs.-them guy. He gets both the uses and the limits of partisanship. He has been known to quote the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr on the dangers of moral arrogance. He could make nuance and complexity cool again. Of course it will take more than that to be successful. But it's a start.

From the John Edwards Blog.. an intriguing thought... Edwards/Gore '08

Dear Edwards Friends:
Happy Weekend to all of you. Let's see a show of hands (or in this case, postings) for those of you who believe in the UNSTOPPABLE POWER OF AN EDWARDS-GORE '08 TICKET TO THE WHITE HOUSE--AND BEYOND.
Write back. We'd love to hear from you.
Edwards-Gore '08--It's Not Too Late. Tomorrow Begins Today.
http://www.harmonyforlife.com/

A note from Greetings: Despite winning or placing well early on, why did the press carry so LITTLE of John Edwards and his ideas? Many of those ideas are now being espoused by Sens. Clinton and Obama, but were not before John Edwards brought them up. He wanted the troops out as soon as he got in - neither Clinton nor Obama did, but Sen. Clinton does now. He wanted anyone entering a hospital without healthcare to either get a chance to get their own, or sign up for federal coverage if they were unable. Does this sound familiar? Now his ideas get coverage from the candidates still being covered by the press. I'll never forget Chris Matthews pushing for a Hillary/Rudy battle from day one over a year ago. That is not press coverage... that's editorializing.