Fair or unfair there is a certain way that we perceive our commanders-in-chief; and when they are caught off-camera, or in this case an open mike, it robs us of some of the romanticism.
For those aspiring biographers set to pitch Random House on their book idea juxtaposing our 43rd president with the 35th president, John F. Kennedy, you might want to reconsider. There might be a more apt comparison, however, with the 36th president, Lyndon Johnson.
Think about it, both are Texans, both believe in big government, both were bogged down in a war that could have been avoided; and both men represent the antithesis of the Kennedy mystique that was shrouded in the myth of Camelot.
Johnson, not exactly known for his panache, came to mind the other day when I heard the president's open mic conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Yo, Blair, how you doing?" was the presidents salutation. "Yo, Blair?" More than Johnsonian, doesn't that sound like a line from "The Lords of Flatbush?"
Much has been made about the president's use of the expletive caught on the open mike when discussing the latest fighting between Hezbollah and Israel. The president stated: "See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this **** and it's over."
The expletive is not the issue. I am surprised we don't have more examples of presidents understandably exasperated by being the most powerful individual in the world, while coming to terms that such power comes with limits. I was struck by the irony and simplicity of the president's analysis.
The president's use of the word "they" is ironic in itself. In the case they is a pronoun representing the United Nations--the same United Nations that the Bush Administration had (has) little regard when they decided to engage in a preemptive strike against Iraq.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the UN in 2003, allegedly proving that Iraq was the threat the administration claimed was nothing more than one of the great dog-and-pony shows in American history. This is the body, led by UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, that the president is holding somewhat accountable for ending the current crisis. In retrospect, I would have been thrilled to hear the president telling Prime Minister Blair leading up to the Iraq invasion: "See, the irony is what the UN need to do is get the weapons inspectors to get Saddam to stop doing this **** and it's over."
Adding to the president's ironic and simplistic analysis is his reason for relying on or blaming the UN--we have no diplomatic relations with Syria. Given that most experts assume that Hezbollah is backed by Syria and Iran, the United States would need an ambassador in Syria to get a process started.
Effective diplomacy is built on relationships, which hasn't been an administration strength. It is unrealistic to ignore a country, as we have with Syria, and once the conflict begins dispatch the secretary of state to the area while bemoaning the failings of Kofi Annan believing that will solve everything.
What is equally telling about the president's statement to Blair is what Time magazine called: The End of Cowboy Diplomacy. One of the hallmarks of conservatism--at least the William F. Buckley/Barry Goldwater model--was the limit of government authority.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was one of the first to dub this administration as the "Mayberry Machiavellians." Given our current state in the world, the administration obviously didn't read the chapter in Machiavelli's The Prince where he warns against going to the limits of one's power because you can only go there once and it ultimately it makes you weaker.
It appears that Syria and Iran view our strong show of force in Iraq as having made us weaker. If so, the president's rhetoric may be Johnson-like, but his posture in the world is moving closer to that of Woodrow Wilson in his second term.