Is President Bush becoming more reasonable/irresponsible?

[Kimstu]

Many people have objected to the current US President on the grounds that, among other things, he’s been needlessly unilateralist and confrontational with longtime allies like Europe, especially over his drive for invading Iraq. Is Bush now toning that down somewhat and becoming more willing to use diplomacy and compromise?

This question is inspired by neoconservative reactions to Bush’s attitude during his recent visit to Brussels. Conservative hawks have been some of the strongest supporters of US unilateralism and of Bush’s policies in the past (although some nonetheless deplored the resulting coolness between allies), so it seems to me that if they don’t like what’s going on now, this may be significant.

Gerard Baker in the Weekly Standard considers the Administration’s handling of Europe potentially hazardous to US interests:

There is a danger, in my view, that the Bush administration, in its newfound eagerness to show its kinder, less Martian, more Venusian side, will actually create bigger problems for itself. In its efforts to be diplomatically accommodating, the United States may end up supporting and bolstering a vision of Europe that is directly at odds with long-term U.S. goals and interests. Nothing is to be gained by unnecessarily antagonizing Europeans, to be sure, and the United States is right to pursue ways of cooperating. But if the early signs of the new détente are any guide, the Bush administration may find itself walking into a trap. […]

Specifically, the European Union is now being driven steadily toward a global role that would counterbalance what the principal architects of European policy, Jacques Chirac especially, see as the pernicious influence of U.S. power. […]

Though officials tried to deny it afterwards in hastily arranged briefings, Schröder’s meaning was clear: Goodbye NATO, hello U.S.-E.U. dialogue.

Instead of politely resisting this crude attempt to change the rules of transatlantic diplomacy, as it has done for the last twenty years, the United States now seems to be encouraging it. On her trip to Europe this month, Secretary of State Rice was positively enthusiastic about the E.U. constitution and the unified foreign policy institutions it will produce: […]

Not only was this an oddly undiplomatic intervention in a clearly contentious internal European matter (at least a dozen countries are holding referendums on the constitution, and the outcome is in serious doubt in at least three). It seemed a straight surrender to a European strategy that is designed not to help the United States in the long run. […]

What a terrible irony it would be if, in its laudable efforts to reach out to Europeans, the United States were to encourage Europe to move precisely in the wrong direction.

Andrew Stuttaford in the National Review was even more negative:

How can I put this nicely? Well, there is no way to put it nicely. Even allowing for the necessity to come out with diplomatically ingratiating remarks ahead of a major presidential visit to the EU, the comments from Bush and Rice are either delightfully insincere or dismayingly naïve. [“Delightfully” insincere? ] […]

Any attempt by the Bush White House to derail the ratification process would backfire, but that does not mean that the administration should be actively signaling its support for this dreadful and damaging document.

During the European meetings, Bush also seemed more open to European opinions on climate protection policies

Germany and the US agreed an action programme on climate protection on Wednesday, in an effort to add substance to efforts by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and President George W. Bush to enforce a spirit of reconciliation at their summit on Wednesday. […]

Mr Schröder said the climate action plan was a “practical step to reduce climate damage”, but accepted that Berlin and Washington still had “different views” on the Kyoto climate protection protocol.

and on strategies towards Iran:

President George W. Bush on Wednesday showed a new willingness to consider a European-led diplomatic approach to ending Iran’s nuclear threat, underlining one of the chief messages of his trip to Europe that he has no appetite for another war.

In spite of remaining differences between Mr Bush and Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, Stephen Hadley, the president’s national security adviser, said that “there has been a convergence” as a result of their discussions in Mainz on Wednesday. Mr Bush was now going to “go back [home] and think about” the European strategy, Mr Hadley said.

Wednesday’s meeting should not be taken as a shift in policy but it represents a new openness to one. […]

But Mr Bush’s eagerness to listen was part of a concerted effort this week by the US president and his staff to dispel the suspicion in Europe that Washington is preparing for military action against Iran.

What do you think? Is Bush simply being “delightfully [?] insincere” in his attempts to warm up relations with Europe, or does this really signal a shift toward “convergence” with European approaches? If the latter, would such a shift be good or bad?

[eleanorigby]

Sorry, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around someone desiring anyone to be “delightfully insincere” at anything besides a wedding shower…I’ll have to get back to you.

(is this the way the neo-cons think? delightfully insincere??)

[aahala]

I’m not going to comment on an adjective.

Reality places limits on behavior and over time affects views.

[Kimstu]

aahala: Reality places limits on behavior and over time affects views.

Sorry, that was a little too condensed for my understanding. Are you saying that Bush’s views are now becoming more “reality-based” (to coin a phrase)?

[XT]

@Kimstu

What do you think? Is Bush simply being “delightfully [?] insincere” in his attempts to warm up relations with Europe, or does this really signal a shift toward “convergence” with European approaches? If the latter, would such a shift be good or bad?

Well, as with all politics and politicians its probably a mixture of both. I DO think that Bush et al is trying to re-approach Europe, and I also think the Europeans are trying to re-approach the US as well, so there are probably some elements of making much ado about nothing here…i.e. a lot of its trying to spin whatever happens in the best possible light to make it appear that the US and Europe are going to be pals again. However, I think that as long as it doesn’t run contrary to what Bush and his merry men feel are vital US national interests that they will try and find common ground with Europe. I see this as a potentially promissing development myself…though I’m not holding my breath here.

I’m unsure why Gerard Baker (cited in the OP) thinks that Europe would be at odds (necessarily) with the US, or why its necessarily a bad thing if NATO goes away to be replaced by some other treaty between the US and Europe. I think there are elements of sour grapes in some of those statements that the US might not dominate in Europe anymore from a military perspective…but I don’t see how this is necessarily a bad thing, even for the US.

I have to admit that thinking of the Europeans re-arming themselves and taking a more active role in the world leaves me with somewhat mixed feelings. On the one hand I think they NEED to start doing more and shouldering more of the burden that was pretty much dumped on the US. On the other hand they ARE Europeans after all, and I’m always a bit wary of Europeans with weapons.

To answer the OP directly, is President Bush becoming more reasonable/irresponsible? I don’t think he’s changed at all. If he thinks its in the US’s national interest he’s still going to do what he see’s as best (gods help us). On anything else I think he’s willing to negotiate with the Europeans. Perhaps he really doesn’t want war with Iran and so can defuse the situation and also score some points world wide by seeming to conceed this to the Europeans. Same with some of these other issues…its possible that Bush doesn’t see whats being conceeded as vital and so is willing to let it go to score some point. Also, he might be doing a good cop bad cop type thing…letting the Europeans ‘talk’ him into a more peaceful stance on Iran (and other things in the region), which will give them more leverage. If they fail…well, I suppose he will win anyway as he can say he tried to give them the chance and they failed…and then reach again for the big stick. Win win situation for him.

Sounds like a smart plan to me.

-XT

[DSeid]

Well, speaking as a devout Bush hater, I can’t find too much to be too upset about looking at this term in isolation. But it’s early yet.

Sure rapprochement with Europe is pragmantic and given that the US is bogged down in Iraq any effort to deal with Iran or Syria or N. Korea requires multinationalism. But just because it makes sense has been no reason for Bush to do things in the past.

Social Security does need fixing, and the earlier the better. Nothing intrinisicallly wrong with private accounts as long as it is only part of a real plan. Lots of ways that I’d agree to.

Tort reform good.

Support for Abbas with dollars, good. Pressure to deliver on security, good. Positioning with the Arab League on Syria getting out of Lebanon, good.

Give him time though. I have faith he’ll screw it all up.