| [an error occurred while processing this directive] |  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: Social Studies: Now Is the Time to Tell the Truth About Rwanda (April 26, 2001) With Clinton out of office, an honest inquiry into America's role during the genocide is at last possible. By Jonathan Rauch Media: The Cutting Edge (April 26, 2001) Strikingly, when journalists' jobs are lopped, the story doesn't get that extra touch of care and concern. By William Powers Legal Affairs: Enact a Civilized Crime Bill, for a Change (April 26, 2001) Letting defendants and convicts use DNA tests to prove their innocence isn't being soft on crime. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Media: Nothing to Tout About (April 26, 2001) When Wall Street was hot, we were suckered by touts. There's just no way to make it feel good. By William Powers Legal Affairs: Ban Racial Preferences, But Keep Affirmative Action (April 18, 2001) Driving preferences underground would at least end the use of extreme double standards. By Stuart Taylor Jr. More from National Journal. |
Political Pulse 
Bush Wins 'Let's Make a Deal'The American public put saving lives over saving face in Chinese standoff. by William Schneider ..... As a result of the 11-day standoff between the United States and China, we learned something about President Bush and something about the American people. We learned that President Bush is not a confrontation-seeker. He's a deal-maker. Bush was serious when he said in debating Al Gore last October: "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us." Or at least, go along with us. What we learned about the American people is the same thing. Americans, too, prefer a deal to a showdown. Like their President, the American people show no excess devotion to abstract principles. An old Yiddish proverb advises, "Take the money." The rule in this case was, "Get the crew." They're back. We won. Let's move on. By that standard, Bush passed his first test in an international crisis. He demonstrated resolve by resisting pressure to do something rash that might have endangered American lives. "Our approach has been to keep this accident from becoming an international incident," the President said at the outset. The China standoff ended just in time. It was in danger of turning into a full-fledged hostage situation, with debilitating consequences for Bush. The U.S. government could have ended up being held hostage by the crisis, as the Carter Administration was during the Iranian ordeal: "America Held Hostage" became the media drumbeat. In this case, the Bush Administration had to spend 10 days publicly searching for a formula that would satisfy the Chinese. "Sorry" wouldn't do. We had to be "very sorry" for the loss of the Chinese pilot. Were we also "very sorry" that our pilot entered their air space without permission? Not particularly. "For that, we are very sorry," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said, "but glad he did it." Former U.S. Ambassador James Lilley noted: "The Chinese insist upon sincerity. I notice that 'sincere regret' was put in there. That must have given them a blush of pleasure." But it certainly did not give Americans a blush of pride. A week into the crisis, the Gallup Poll asked Americans whether the U.S. should apologize to the Chinese. The answer was no, by 54 percent to 41 percent. That's a "No," but it's not a "Hell, no." To hear "Hell, no," you had to ask men. Men opposed an apology by 64 percent to 31 percent. Being a man, apparently, means never having to say you're sorry. On the other hand, women favored an apology by 51 percent to 44 percent: "Well, maybe, yes, if it will get our crew back." Conservatives were certainly not happy with the U.S. loss of face. The Weekly Standard declared: "President Bush has revealed weakness. And he has revealed fear: fear of the political, strategic, and economic consequences of meeting a Chinese challenge." For the most part, however, conservatives were willing to cut Bush some slack. Imagine what would have happened if Bill Clinton had been the President who made those concessions to China. Conservatives would be howling for his blood. The Chinese extorted concessions from the United States. Embarrassing? Yes, but Americans put saving lives over saving face. Once the lives of the crew were saved, Bush felt some pressure to regain face. So he took a harder line: "China's decision to prevent the return of our crew for 11 days is inconsistent with the kind of relationship we have both said we wish to have." The Administration also released information showing that the accident was the fault of the Chinese pilot and that the Chinese had a policy of deliberately harassing U.S. reconnaissance planes. Moreover, U.S. officials claim the crew destroyed all vital security information before surrendering to the Chinese. Beyond those face-saving revelations, there doesn't seem to be a lot of political pressure to make the Chinese pay. Impose trade sanctions? U.S. business interests would strongly resist that. Sell advanced weapons to Taiwan? The Chinese warn that such a step could be dangerous and provocative. Keep China from hosting the 2008 Olympics? That invites an unflattering comparison to Carter's "punishment" of the Soviet Union for its 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. Why so little pressure for retaliation? Because Americans don't care that much about foreign policy these days, as long as American lives and interests are not threatened. Bush provided the one element necessary for diplomatic success: patience. As Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser, acknowledged: "From time to time, he would buck us up a little bit and say, 'You know, diplomacy takes time.' " Bush shunned confrontation with China, just as he shunned confrontation with the Senate over his budget. When the Senate slashed Bush's tax cut by a quarter, the President's response was to declare victory and move on. Both actions were perfectly consistent with the American public's mood. Clinton was a striver. That word has never been used to describe George W. Bush. In fact, many voters welcomed Bush's easygoing charm as a relief from Clinton's driving ambition. But it does raise the question of what Bush is willing to fight for. The same question was raised about his father, who proved to be resolute in the Persian Gulf but feckless on the economy. Americans appreciate George W. Bush's caution in handling the China standoff. But in a real crisis—an energy crisis, say, or a recession—Americans want bold leadership, not "safety first."
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2001 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. | [an error occurred while processing this directive] | ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
