Time magazine didn’t give President Bush its Person of
the Year award, even though Bush’s accomplishments — staying the
course through three Iraqi votes, presiding over a booming U.S.
economy, and preventing a domestic terror attack for the fourth
consecutive year — seem to stack up pretty well against those of
the philanthropists who were honored, and whose work would come to
nothing if the country Bush leads were to be disabled.
Maybe it’s just as well that for 2005 Bush not be given the
honor of Person of the Year, with its vaguely P.C. ring. The kind
of year he had, and his response to it, seems to warrant an older
name: Bush was the year’s great stoic. Whether or not he has ever
read the ancient Stoic philosophers, he seems to have internalized
some of their teachings. Try this one from Epictetus:
“In a word, neither death, nor exile, nor pain, nor anything of
this kind, is the real cause of our doing or not doing any action,
but our opinions and the decisions of our will.”
It was a pretty trying year for the White House, offering no
shortage of death, exile, and pain. Yet from Iraq and Hurricane
Katrina to fuel prices, a botched Supreme Court nomination, special
prosecutor investigations, and the persistent calls for military
withdrawal, Bush’s will remained about as close to unbreakable as
it gets in American politics. Whatever his errors in judgment —
and 2005 offered those, too — Bush seems to have a cast iron
stomach and a granite chin.
The last two years have provided ample evidence that, contrary
to a pronouncement once made by Bush’s father, the Vietnam syndrome
is alive and well in our politics. Bush’s ability to withstand
sustained domestic political opposition while prosecuting a
difficult war is remarkable. It hasn’t been done before, at least
not in a post-Vietnam age. There is no guarantee that it will be
done successfully. But at even the darkest moments, Bush has
steadfastly refused to declare the defeat that so many of his
political opponents wish him to declare. When they complain that
his Iraq speeches offer “nothing new,” that is what they are really
complaining about.
Bush had already had a difficult year by late August, when
Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. The post-Katrina storm seemed
strong enough to bury him. He was flat-footed for a time, not
unlike the early days after September 11th. No sooner had he picked
up the pieces on the Bayou than he picked Harriet Miers for the
Supreme Court, and got into a fight with his base. Everything
seemed made for the Democrats. They even had some modest successes
in the November off-year elections.
Then the Democrats made the same mistake they’ve made in the
past when they had momentum — they expressed themselves in public.
The surrender chorus kicked into gear. First, Congressman Murtha.
Then DNC Chairman Dean. Then John Kerry. Then Nancy Pelosi. Harry
Reid gloated prematurely about “killing the Patriot Act,” a boast
that would have been unthinkable a few years ago — and should
still be, since the threat has not changed.
Then Bush began defending his policies, after a political
eternity of silence that did enormous damage to his credibility.
Even Cheney made an appearance! Americans have been reminded over
the last month what the national security differences are between
the president and his opposition. It hasn’t translated into love
and affection — Bush’s approval rating of somewhere in the mid- or
high 40s, depending on the poll, is nothing to write home about —
but the spike up in this short period is demonstrative. When
explanations for Bush’s policies are advanced, and contrasts drawn
between his understanding of the conflict and the Democrats’, his
support improves.
Bush’s political instincts remain puzzling. It is not clear why
he cedes so much rhetorical ground to his opposition, and for such
long periods, before re-entering the fray. We’ve seen this pattern
repeat itself over the years. Fortunately, his instincts as a
commander in chief are much steadier. He won’t give in, period.
“Who then is the invincible?” Epictetus asked. “It is he whom
none of the things disturb which are independent of the will.”
No one who watched Bush in 2005 would be deluded about his
invincibility, but neither should they forget that he has proven to
be extraordinarily difficult to “disturb” on matters of national
security. Sooner or later — probably much later — more Americans
may come to treasure this about him.
