The fact that so many of those judgments could easily pass for today’s backlash to Bush’s speech doesn’t automatically discredit them. Nor does the fact that many of those judgments about previous U.S. presidents were radically revised, or completely reversed, later. After all, some–like Schmidt’s carping about Carter–proved pretty close to the mark.
But at the very least, today’s foreign critics of Bush should consider whether they aren’t making a rush to judgment by repeating, sometimes in almost exactly the same words, their often erroneous assessments of his predecessors. Was Kennedy wrong in taking the world to the brink of nuclear war to force Nikita Khrushchev to pull his missiles out of Cuba? Was Reagan wrong in ratcheting up the pressure on “the evil empire,” thus hastening its collapse? Today most people would consider those purely rhetorical questions–with good reason.
U.S. presidents often find themselves in a damned-if-they-don’t, damned-if-they-do position. If they fail to act decisively on the world stage, they are accused of shirking their responsibilities, of failing to lead. If they stride forcefully into the international arena, they are accused of superpower arrogance. In the Middle East, Bill Clinton was widely ridiculed for his micromanagement of the peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians as he was preparing to leave office. Yet within a couple of months the same critics were loudly complaining that Bush was dangerously disengaged from the peace process.
The Clinton-Bush contrast is even more dramatic in the case of North Korea. Clinton backed South Korean President Kim Dae Jung’s “sunshine policy” of reconciliation with his totalitarian neighbor, and claimed he was close to achieving a deal to end North Korean production of missiles for export to countries like Iraq and Syria. “I figure I left the next administration with a big foreign-policy win,” the ex-president declared recently. Bush, who will be visiting Seoul next week, figured differently–declaring North Korea part of the “axis of evil.” The verdict is still out on whether a more confrontational approach will produce results, but there is a precedent. When Reagan made his “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech in Berlin in 1987, the German foreign-policy establishment–and even some State Department officials–winced. (When skeptical reporters questioned him after his speech, Reagan calmly replied: “Well, Jericho didn’t last forever.”) Today Reagan’s voice issuing that famous challenge to the Soviet leader greets visitors to “The Story of Berlin” multimedia exhibit in that city.
In his leadership style and willingness to go with his gut instincts and core beliefs, Bush almost uncannily resembles Reagan. The recent Washington Post series “10 Days in September” by Dan Balz and Bob Woodward offered a riveting account of how the “visceral reactions” of the president shaped the administration’s response to September 11. During day one of the crisis, Bush spelled out a new doctrine that made no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them. He saw an opportunity to force other countries to choose what side they are on in the new war on terrorism, ending all tolerance for intentional ambiguity. He didn’t agonize about the hard choices.
That doesn’t mean Bush necessarily makes all the right choices, either at home or abroad. But he has proved that he isn’t afraid to take charge when confronted by a major crisis. And that he’s willing to act as the leader both of his country and of whatever new global alliances are emerging from it. He’s willing to be damned for what he does rather than for what he fails to do. That’s what leadership is all about. This may simply be stating the obvious. But it seems that a reminder of the obvious, even the ridiculously obvious, is needed from time to time. Like now.
