Mike: Mistake? You can't use the word "mistake" in reference to the Bush Foreign Policy -- that's like calling the Indonesian tsunami a high tide.
Bush's biggest mistakes have always been domestic policy mistakes. Outside the country, he can fly by the seat of his pants, innovate, experiment, fine-tune, provoke, intimidate, infuriate, advance, retract, and take the big gamble.
At home, he is a high-spending Calvin Coolidge who does nothing to stop corporate tax shelters, and allows his party and important domestic agencies to be pirated by hacks who would make Ulysses Grant blush. Out of fear of "the Japan scenario," he allows state governments to float in red ink. So padlocked into the confines of his Reagan-era ideology, he has no vision of domestic leadership. He gets pulled into energy conservation by Wall Street and into environmental restraint by his Fundamentalist constituents. He has no compass, no oar, and no rudder.
So--if anyone has read this far--a different question, one between presidents' personal leadership skills and their political ideologies.
_______
Imagine there's an election. One candidate espouses your fondest hopes, values, and political aspirations; yet he (or she) has no imagination or leadership ability, no managerial skill and no guts.
The other candidate proclaims an ideology you despise; yet she (or he) is brainy and tough, knows how to manage complex groups, is courageous and inspiring, albeit for the wrong reasons.
So who's your choice? Do you pick bad government based on an ideological point of view you support? Or good government in service of an ideology you loathe? Don't rush to answer. Can a bad leader with the right ideals do more damage than a good leader with the wrong ideals?
Not that we have such a choice. But the problem interests me.
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html