A Harbor in the Tempest

When Bill Clinton was in the White House, he was often criticized (and usually rightly so) for being far too concerned with polls and public opinion on even the smallest of matters. His decision making process appeared to be based more on how the decision would be received rather than on any underlying core principles or values that he might hold. But if Clinton had his finger in the wind (among other places) too often, his successor appears to once again be suffering from a stubborn unwillingness to consider how his decisions will play in the prevailing political winds.

From a national security/economic/war on terror perspective the decision to approve the DP World ports deal may very well be entirely defensible. I've heard a lot of good arguments from both sides of the issue and it's obvious that we need further discussion to clarify matters. Frankly at this point, I don't know enough about all the particulars to conclusively declare it good or bad and I think many people freely opining on it are talking out of their pieholes.

But I do know that from a political position, it's a friggin' disaster. The reality of whether this is a good deal or not doesn't matter because the perception out there is that it isn't. And in politics it's all about perception.

After stumbling badly in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the Miers nomination debacle, the Bush administration finally seemed to be back on their feet at the end of 2005, beginning of 2006. Now, they've managed to once again tee off a good chunk of their base and hand the Democrats a golden sledge hammer with which to pound them with on an issue that Democrats are usually viewed as being weak on. Talk about a lose-lose situation.

Why does the administration display such a political tin ear at times (usually critical ones at that)? And what can they do to make sure they're more hip to the vibe on the street in the future?

My modest if somewhat corny sounding proposal is to set up some sort of citizen's advisory forum. Pick twelve party people (Republicans) from around the country. Twelve politically aware and active people. No wonks allowed. Empanel them, like you would a grand jury, to serve for a limited amount of time (say three months). Make them agree not to disclose any of the information they are presented with on pain of accompanying Dick Cheney on his next hunting trip.

Then, the next time President Bush is thinking about nominating his personal law-talking gal for the Supreme Court or threatening to veto any legislation preventing him from giving the keys to our ports to the A-rabs, he schedules a conference call with this group and runs it up the flagpole. If they salute, he proceeds as planned. If they ask what the hell he's thinking, he might want to reconsider the idea. At least there would some real live feedback before hitting yet another political pothole. The road's rough enough the way it is.