One of the more common remarks made by the political establishment is that a president — any president — cannot expect to execute a war without the support of the public. There’s rarely any substantive follow-up on this point, however. It’s just understood — the backing of the electorate is simply necessary to continue fighting a war. The argument is presented in a self-evident kind of way, as if no explanation is needed.
It’s worth noting, of course, that there are all kinds of self-evident truths for which the Bush White House has little use. Cutting taxes during a costly war? It’s just not done, except Bush did it. Rejecting tenets of the Geneva Conventions to engage in torture? Presidents don’t do this, except this one did. Circumventing all checks and balances to engage in warrantless domestic surveillance? No president would even try, except Bush barely hesitated to do just that. Invade a country under false pretenses and without any thought about post-conflict peace? You get the point.
So, why can’t Bush continue fighting a war that Americans reject and abhor? The subject came up during the president’s NPR interview yesterday with Juan Williams. (This is the full exchange, without edits.)
MR. WILLIAMS: How long can you sustain the policy, though, with people so vehement in their doubt, the Congress voting as the Congress is voting, the polls showing what they’re showing?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Well, I’m – you know, I’m hopeful that the decision I have made is going to yield enough results so that the Iraqi government is able to take more of the responsibility. Listen, they want the responsibility. You’ve heard their prime minister say, we’re ready to go. And in my judgment, and more importantly, the judgment of the military folks, they’re not quite ready to go. And therefore, it is in our interest to help them with an additional 21,000 troops, particularly in Baghdad, to help bring this violence down and to deal with these radicals, whether they be Sunni radicals or Shia radicals.
And, you know, I’m reluctant to put timetables on the situation because there are people who listen to what I say and others in America say, and are willing to adjust their timetables to our timetable. It is a – I’m optimistic, I’m realistic, I understand how tough the fight is, but I also understand the stakes, and it’s very important for our citizens to understand that a Middle East could evolve in which rival forms of extremists compete with each other, you know, nuclear weapons become developed, safe havens are in place, oil would be used as an economic weapon against the West. And I’m confident that if this were to happen, people would look back at this year and say, what happened to those people in 2006? How come they couldn’t see the impending threat?
Notice how Bush didn’t even try to address the question itself.
Williams asked how long the president can expect to fight a war without the support of the American people, and Bush responded by explaining why he thinks his tactics will succeed.
In other words, the support of the electorate would be nice, but it’s wholly unnecessary. When asked about it, he believes it’s a subject to be avoided. Nothing more.
In the context of the conventional wisdom, the establishment seems to be telling Bush, “You can’t fight a war indefinitely against the will of the nation.” To which the president responds, “Watch me.”
At this point, it’s almost as if Bush no longer feels he has anything to lose. His presidency is a failure; he’s been rejected the electorate; Congress is now being run by his political rivals; he has no real agenda to speak of; and his credibility here and around the world is practically non-existent. And yet, Congress can’t realistically remove him from office, his bubble remains intact, and lawmakers won’t cut off funding for his disastrous war.
And so, the lame duck keeps swimming, unconcerned about what commonly-accepted norms tell him he “can” or “can’t” do.