« Whose Ox? | Main | The Joy of Reading »

February 22, 2006

Could Kerry Really Have Been Worse?

The decision to allow a company from the United Arab Emirates to take over operations at six American ports may not actually be a bad idea, despite the obvious negative political implications. And the fact President Bush didn't know about it until recently doesn't really concern me either. The number of things the government does guarantee that the President can be aware of only a small fraction of its activities, and I'm not convinced that port operations fall into the arena of things the President needs to get involved in.

But having said that, the Bush administration's treatment of the flap over the deal to allow the United Arab Emirates to take control of six of the U.S.'s biggest ports has been about as poor as I think could be imagined. Whether the proposed deal is a good one or not, it does sound odd on the face of it, given the threat of terrorism we face, terrorism that comes from a region the United Arab Emirates inhabits and terrorism that might well enter the United States through our ports. It should not have come as a shock that people might question the wisdom of this deal. Yet the Bush administration somehow managed to not only be caught by complete surprise that it could be an issue, but reacted not by explaining the wisdom of the policy so the public could weigh the benefits against the perceived risks. No, the President reacted by assuring us that the deal was in our best interests and that we should trust him. Congress having established that they'd like a little more than his word before going ahead with the deal, we get the President threatening to wield his veto pen to force the deal through.

I am assured by other bloggers that this is SOP for the Bush administration. Perhaps so; the last big decision I really worried about from the Bush administration was their decision to go to war in Iraq, and this was not how they sold that decision, at least. But this episode seriously undermines whatever residual confidence I had in the Bush administration and seriously makes me wonder if the Republican party has any idea just how much trouble it is in. Let's be honest: about the only advantage the Republicans have right now is that they're perceived as stronger on national defense than the Democrats (please note that I said perceived, so spare me the rants on how Democrats are just as good on national security as Republicans). They can't credibly claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility after the spending spree of the past six years. Less government? Not the party that created the biggest new entitlement since the Great Society and jacked up federal involvement in education to unprecedented levels. No, after national defense, the Republicans are in a lot of trouble at the moment. Now President Bush has apparently decided to toss that out the window, too. Yes, I realize that this deal may not, in fact, jeopardize national security one iota, but in politics, perception is reality. And the perception of this deal and how President Bush has reacted to it cannot help but undermine the Republicans on national security.

Yes, I'm quite sure that Kerry would have been bad as well. His campaign pretty effectively demonstrated his own utter lack of political sense. It's time to go back to choosing candidates in smoke-filled back rooms, because the primary system frankly isn't getting the job done.