That is why I predict that historians will consider George W. Bush one of our great presidents. The last few days have seen the killing of the Al Qaeda leader in Iraq--the most visible and dangerous Al Qaeda leader because the others are in hiding and are not on the frontline. We saw the Iraqi cabinet finally completed as the national unity government, which includes representatives of all the major ethnic groups (including one Christian cabinet member), agreed on ministers for the crucial posts dealing with security. The new Iraqi prime minister appears to be a man of effective, no-nonsense action who is already implementing a plan to secure his capital from uncontrolled violence. It was all capped off yesterday with the President's surprise visit to Baghdad to deliver two messages: the U.S. commitment is solid, but the future is in the hands of the new permanent, democratically elected Iraqi government.
In addition, there was good political news for the President because his chief political advisor, Karl Rove, was cleared by the federal prosecutor investigating the so-called CIA leak case. (Let me be clear: the CIA leak investigation is a joke, it should never have been initiated, and the current charges against the Vice-President's former chief of staff should be dismissed. But at least Rove is finally off the hook. Justice has been served at least in his case.)
Moreover, the foolhardy Democrats are falling all over themselves. They lost their Katrina issue when their favored candidate, Mitch Landrieu, lost his bid to become mayor of New Orleans and manage the reconstruction of the city. The reelected mayor of New Orleans who defeated Landrieu, contrary to virtually all pundit predictions, promptly and profusely thanked President Bush for his efforts to reconstruct New Orleans. The Democrats lost their hyped-up corruption issue with the spectacle of Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson refusing to resign even though the FBI has solid evidence of bribery allegations, including finding thousands of dollars in his freezer. To boot, Democratic Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island pleaded guilty yesterday to driving under the influence of prescription medicine--we will never know whether alcohol was involved because he got favored VIP treatment from the Capitol police who excused him from a field sobriety test. True to the hoary Kennedy tradition, some are above the laws that apply to the rest of us. But the very rich have tended to have that outlook throughout history.
But back to the main issue: character and leadership. And it has to do with Iraq. Bush does not have the appeasement mentality that is so common in our culture. Another word for the appeasement mentality is that gift from the world of psychology: codependency. Appeasement is the older term and has the benefit of reminding us of the debacle of this mode of relating to others in the years preceding World War II. When you deal with the irrational, you can't adopt the tactic of pleasing or coddling. To the irrational or malicious, the attempt to please is a sign of weakness inviting a boot on the neck. We see it in the combined irrational and malicious terrorists we are currently fighting. That is why the only rational response to Zarqawi was his death in the field of battle. Bush understands that and presses forward. In Catholic terms, it's called the right of self-defense.
In contrast, the Democrats are stuck in the year 1970 or 1971. It is utterly amazing to see the spectacle of John Kerry still stuck in those years. He just can't process reality. If anyone thinks that the nation will trust the vacuous Democrats with fighting the war on Islamist terrorism, then he is betting that the nation as a whole has also become irrational. Let's hope not.
Great leaders like Bush do not appease the unappeasable. Appeasement may be fine for pleasing the harmless, old eccentric relative; but it is self-destructive in the face of the irrational and malicious. Appeasement also points to an equally serious problem in the appeaser. The appeaser never learns from experience. The appeaser keeps assuming that the unappeasable side is rational, lucid, and well-intentioned, in spite of clear accumulated evidence of the opposite reality. That attitude is, to me, the definition of cowardice: the inability to face the reality of evil in the world and to act prudently and rationally in response.
The inability to face the reality of evil points to a lack of faith. Faith can handle evil because faith trusts in the God who guarantees the final victory over evil. It seems to me that those most prone to appeasement are those who want to wish away and deny the reality of evil because they fear the victory of evil. That is why, even in daily life, we find individuals who spend years appeasing terrible associates and even family members, to the detriment of all involved. We find women, especially, going from one demeaning, sexually exploitive relation to another because they don't believe there is anything better. Let me be clear again: the Christian is under no obligation to appease anyone. The Christian obligation is to do good. The best favor that a Christian can do to those on the wrong track is to say no and stop them in their tracks. The tragic vein of appeasement runs right through our human experience from great matters of state to the ordinary relationships of daily life. If we really believe that God is good and guarantees the victory of good, then we challenge the irrational and the malicious, whether they come in the form of a foreign terrorist or in the more banal form of the exploitive and irrational individuals we all come across in daily life. Character comes from saying no to the unappeasable. Character comes from trusting that the good God will take care of the outcome. Remember that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is fortitude. I have never found appeasement on the list.
I admit I am intrigued by the prospect of President Bush's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, running for office someday. It may be too soon for an extension of "the Bush dynasty," and Jeb himself has firmly ruled out the idea of running in 2008. 
Posts
Following the 2004 Presidential election, we've expanded our discussion to cover the public policy decisions of Catholics in public service on both sides of the political divide.
