What The Decider Should Decide

In all fairness, George W. Bush was never cut out to be president. But for the accident of his birth, this modestly gifted man would have spent his life in relative obscurity – a good neighbor, pillar of his community and church, and all-around good guy. Living the ordinary life for which Nature fitted him, he would likely have been happier.

Assuredly, his country would have been.

Instead, Mr. Bush – president by virtue of his last name, a bit of Oval Office hanky-panky, and the decision of a divided Supreme Court – is now challenging James Buchanan for last place in the historical rankings of America’s presidents.

Personally, I doubt he’ll make it. Buchanan, after all, lost seven states – not in the electoral college – from the Union. Had it not been for the extraordinary leadership of his successor, Buchanan might have gone down in history as the last President of the United States. In terms of character, at least, the decisive Mr. Bush stands head and shoulders above the dithering Buchanan.

Unfortunately, given his disinclination for personal study or deep reflection, Mr. Bush’s decisiveness has often proved a weakness. He has relied too readily on the advice of others of his class – well-heeled men in tailored suits who speak in the ultra- macho, football-and-combat vernacular popular among those who earn millions without ever getting their well-manicured hands dirty.

As a result, Mr. Bush has decisively put himself on the wrong side of many issues – environmental, scientific, economic, and social. For these errors, History might well forgive him. But he has also led his country into an absolute quagmire in Mesopotamia – overextending our military to the breaking point, alienating our allies, and bankrupting our treasury.

For this one mistake, many times compounded, History will almost certainly judge him harshly.

In his decision to commit 21,500 additional troops to the mess in Mesopotamia, President Bush has disregarded the judgment of his fellow citizens, clearly registered in the mid-term elections. He has flown in the face of informed military opinion, as reflected in the outspoken opposition of retired generals who had heretofore supported him. He has lost the near-unanimous support of Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Today, Mr. Bush is approaching the nadir Mr. Clinton reached after he lied to the nation about his relations with Miss Lewinsky. A weakened President, having lost his majorities in both houses of Congress, enters the last two years of his presidency with dismal approval ratings and his party on the verge of mutiny.

Eight years ago, I was among the handful of Democrats who publicly urged Mr. Clinton’s resignation. My reasons had something to do with his infidelity, more to do with his mendacity, and much to do with his forfeiture of that priceless presidential asset – credibility.

But my main reason was that I was more interested in the issues Mr. Clinton championed – and the party he led – than in the man himself. Mr. Clinton had become a liability. If he resigned, President Gore could have used the next two years to regain the policy initiative – and to enter the 2000 presidential campaign as a prohibitive favorite for election in his own right.

Looking back over the past six years, it’s painful to think where America might be today had President Gore won re-election in 2000 – as he certainly would have.

We would, of course, have troops in Afghanistan. More troops, including the special ops teams which were diverted from chasing Osama to overthrowing Saddam.

We’d probably not be in Iraq, though we might have peacekeeping forces in Darfur.

We’d probably still be operating at or near a balanced budget, instead of running record deficits fueled by upper-class tax cuts. We’d likely be moving toward energy independence, and leading the world in combating global climate change. And New Orleans would probably be a lot closer to realizing its renaissance.

But that’s my fantasy. Mr. Clinton decided to cling to office – and history took a different course.

Today, I’d like to present a Republican fantasy – one that will almost certainly not happen – but which could happen, if Republican leaders consulted their own self-interest.

Suppose those leaders compelled Mr. Bush to face the fact that he has led his country into a mess from which he lacks the judgment, imagination, and political clout to extract it.

Suppose they persuaded him to act with extraordinary patriotism and self-sacrifice – to rescue Iraq from civil war, his country from quagmire, and his party from near-certain defeat in 2008.

Suppose Mr. Bush demanded Dick Cheney’s resignation and nominated Colin Powell to replace him – and then, upon Powell’s confirmation, followed Richard Nixon’s example by resigning the presidency.

Can anyone doubt that President Powell, soldier and diplomat, would be uniquely equipped to tackle the complex military and diplomatic challenges of Iraq?

Can anyone doubt that President Powell, with two years of incumbency under his belt, would handily defeat any Democratic challenger in 2008?

Can anyone doubt that, as America’s first black President – and a Republican – Mr. Powell would preside over a party realignment that would dwarf the fantasies of Karl Rove, making the Republicans a majority for at least for the next few decades?

It won’t happen, of course. Mr. Bush, like Mr. Clinton before him, will lead his party over a cliff in 2008.

Because no Republican will tell him it’s time to go, the future will be left to The Decider.