The recent election signaled the rooting of a stale, stagnant ideology from its place of power in the Congress, yielding a widespread sense of relief in the electorate. Even many traditional Republicans seemed relieved. Their faces were less stressed, and their day-to-day language with others became less combative. Across the country, people felt that we might be able to actually deal with our problems and challenges.
Yet, as America’s recent electoral changes become familiar, there is an unsettling feeling in the hearts of many Americans. The stagnant, stale ideology that guided government for the last six years remains strong in the White House. A rising chorus of voices with new ideas and fresh perspectives are rising across the country, but the President appears deaf to them. No decision, no change is perceived as strength. The President says he is waiting for the results of the Iraq Study Group before making a decision about Iraq. He says his generals make the decisions in Iraq. He thinks he will be strong by finding a way to keep his Ambassador at the UN, John Bolton, who Congress will not ratify; he is avoiding the tough decision to find a new UN Ambassador. Hence, the President has no decisions awaiting him in the morning on his desk. The responsibility of every major decision has been abdicated to others. Not delegated, abdicated. Meanwhile, Iran has taken the lead in solving Iraq, North Korea continues its nuclear program, a hundred Americans and thousands of Iraqis are killed every month in Iraq. We are living through the consequences of the abdicated presidency.
Essentially, America is leaderless at this critical time in history. Our foreign policy is hostage to a fifteen year old idea cooked up by neoconservative think tanks in the 1990s. The President’s abdication of his responsibility to lead the country is resulting in other countries taking on the mantle of leadership. The uneasiness filtering into the national psyche is that the President has no ideas, cannot lead the country, and will stymie all attempts at new ideas arising from the new Congress. Given the alternative of the continued implementation of the neoconservative foreign policy, stalemate is a definite improvement. But it is not good for America. We need a wise, insightful, active foreign policy, not an ideological one, not a stale policy, and not a leaderless government. Americans may need to get used to waiting for it; George W. Bush is not one to change his failing ways.