I’m fairly critical of the war in Iraq on a strategic basis, not merely on the strategy of executing the war, but the political strategy that somehow suggested that there was a good outcome to this. But Craig Crawford, in a post titled Opinion-Proof Policy on CQPolitics.com, has a different problem. George Bush, he says, is stubborn, and is ignoring public opinion.
He says:
One wonders what would happen if the president made a wrong turn on a road trip. Is there a chance hed double back to the right path? I think not. Instead, he gives the impression of someone who would circle the globe before admitting he was lost. He is the stereotypical belligerent male that women often complain about, preferring to stay lost rather than stop and ask someone for directions.
Now I happen to be a male who sees great value in asking for directions, and I think it would be very wise to reconsider both where we have been and where we are going with regard to the war in Iraq. I think some changes in both our tactical and strategic–especially strategic–thinking would be in order.
But who is it that Crawford is proposing that President Bush should ask for directions? Well, it’s from me and from you, or rather from the American public. The opinion polls. Part of the evidence he cites for the claim that the president is stubborn (a point on which I agree with him) is that he ignores opinion poll after opinion poll.
Now while I disagree with the president on many things, on this one I agree. The proper way in this country to shift political policies is through elections, not opinion polls. We need to elect statesmen who will use their good judgment to carry the nation through their term of office. We could have a constitution that mandates referenda on various issues. We could even have policty guidance on a daily or hourly basis with the current technology. But that’s not what the constitution mandates. Even more importantly, if you think that policy changes course on a regular basis now, think of what would happen based on opinion polls. Somewhere along the line we had around 80% approval for what Bush was doing. People apparently missed the nature of middle eastern politics, and thought that one could easily wipe of Saddam Hussein’s government, replace it with something else, and depart with a stable Iraq. Months later, long before anyone should have imagined, even at their most optimistic, that such a goal could have been accomplished, people started to get tired of it. That’s public opinion.
Public opinion is generally irresponsible, not because most of the people are irresponsible. In their daily lives they are likely intelligent, competent, and responsible. But they are not directly connected to the decision making process, and neither the reward nor the blame for the decision falls on them individually enough. It does fall on the persons we elect to office. Often we make bad choices in electing people, and we regret the choices we made, but that is the purpose of elections. Elections are the way to guide policy, not the daily shifting of opinion.
None of this excuses the Bush administration for any policy shifts, or failure to provide adequate resources, or failures of planning. The only point I disagree with Crawford about is, in fact, that the public opinion polls should have anything to do with it. I suspect that many Democrats are now regretting following those opinion polls in originally supporting the war. It was hard to go against the president’s policy when 70-80% of the public was in support of his policies. But at a minimum, the strategy and the resource level involved needed to be adjusted at that point.
We need to put our efforts in this country into electing responsible leaders and holding them responsible. I know that’s probably dreaming on my part. Name recognition seems to have more to do with election than policy. But that is the only way we can get the country on track to behave responsibly in the world. We owe it to ourselves to try.