As the Democratic primary campaign gets rolling, the strategy of the candidates is, for the most part, to run against President Bush rather than against each other. While this could prove beneficial in the long run, it could also prove fatal if the candidates fall into the same trap that has plagued the left over the past few years--attacking Bush with such fervor as to tumble into incoherence.
Since Bush took office, and particularly since the march to war in Iraq began, there has been a constant drone of criticism toward the president generally and the war specifically, a drone in which legitimate critiques of the man and his policies are drowned out by charges that are either given far too much significance or are flat-out false.
Opponents of the president seem eager to attach any and all negative adjectives to him, and in the process often end up contradicting themselves. It reminds me in many ways of the case made in defense of O.J. Simpson, as his legal team portrayed the L.A. police department as being both deviously clever and ridiculously incompetent.
Unfortunately, the leading voices of the American left do not seem to be nearly as persuasive as Johnnie Cochran was, and the American people likely will not be swayed by this approach.
Many liberals attempt to paint the same contradictory picture of Bush, that he is both foolish and diabolical. I doubt there is much truth to either of these characterizations. While he will never be mistaken for a Rhodes Scholar, I believe that Bush is a man of at least average intelligence. (If it appears I'm damning him with faint praise, I probably am. But he's not an idiot as some would like to believe). I am even more confident in the falsity of the characterization of Bush as a wicked man who sends young men to their deaths in order to ensure payoffs for his buddies in the oil industry. I do not believe there is a mean-spirited bone in our president's body, and I trust that he honestly believes he is acting in the best interest of the American people.
Rather, these perceived flaws arise from what I believe to be the real problem with President Bush: a stubbornness arising from his deep faith. Bush's faith runs beyond faith in God and extends to faith in himself and, most damagingly, the people around him. He is so assured of the correctness of his views that he doesn't care to be bothered with considering alternatives, and so at times appears aloof and ill-informed. At the same time, his willingness to follow the lead of callous old men like Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft gives him the appearance of wickedness.
In attacking Bush, liberals today are taking the same approach conservatives have taken over the past 10 years in attacking Bill Clinton--throwing every charge imaginable at him and hoping that something sticks. In doing so, they risk falling into the same trap that conservatives fell into, appearing so petty that even valid charges appear to be motivated purely by spite.
Lately, most of the criticism of the president has centered on the war in Iraq. Certainly, there are problems that can be pointed out regarding how the war has been conducted. Even assuming that weapons of mass destruction will be found, it has never been adequately demonstrated that Saddam, evil as he was/is, was tied to terrorists or that he in any way posed an immediate threat to the United States.
It is also becoming increasingly apparent that the Bush administration was not adequately prepared to deal with post-war Iraq. The Pentagon has been flustered by the amount of resistance our troops continue to face, counter to its vision of a grateful, cooperative Iraqi people. This, again, can be chalked up to the faith of Bush and his inner circle: They were so certain in the success of Plan A that no one bothered to write a Plan B.
Unfortunately, these points have been overshadowed as the left has assaulted the war on all fronts, working backwards from the conclusion that the war is wrong and grasping on to any point that would support this conclusion. The most ridiculous reason for criticizing the war is the aforementioned "blood for oil" charge. This accusation is both ridiculously simplistic and a very unfair charge to make against a morally-decent man.
My personal least favorite of the many arguments made against the war is that "the international community is opposed to it." This argument smacks of cowardice, an unwillingness to rely simply on principled pacifism or reasoned opposition to this specific military action. Whether or not an action is morally justifiable should not depend on whether or not the French believe it to be such.
While that point is not raised nearly as often now as it was at the war's outset, the current frontrunner for most popular criticism of the war in Iraq--that weapons of mass destruction have not been found--is even more problematic because it sets the pro-war side up for a great victory when weapons are found, as they likely will be. It also damages the credibility of the anti-war movement, as little of the initial opposition to invading Iraq was based on denying that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
There is undoubtedly a case to be made against President Bush in next year's election. It cannot be made effectively, however, if baseless and spiteful criticisms are allowed to cloud his true faults as a leader.
Anthony Resnick is a Trinity sophomore. His column appears every third week.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.