WHERE HAS THIS GUY BEEN?

The President had a post-election press conference today, the day after his party took a “thumping” (his words) at the polls. He acknowledged the significance of the defeat, expressed a willingness to work with the opposition party, did not demean and denigrate those who have been disagreeing with him, subtly dissed Dick Cheney, and fired Donald Rumsfeld.

Where has this President been? If he had been in evidence over the last few months, the Republican defeat might not have occurred. But what had been in evidence for some time was a close-minded, arrogant, intellectually narrow man who spoke only to the lowest common denominator among the American people, was contemptuous of those who disagreed with him, and was incapable of admitting error.

Which President will be in office for the next two years? That is the sixty-four dollar question. The answer will depend in part on the Democrats. If they follow the path of the Congressional Republicans who came to power in 1994 and attempt to ram their righteousness down the nation’s collective throats, the Old George will likely resurface very soon. But if the Democrats can restrain their baser instincts, can keep in focus the message that the American people want less partisanship and more pragmatism, maybe the New George will be persuaded to stick around for awhile.

Every so often in the flow of history, clear alternatives are evident. The leaders of the United States are now at one such moment. The clear alternatives are not of policies or about the war in Iraq. The clear alternatives are about how policies, including a policy for Iraq, are determined. The leaders can continue the vituperative approach of the recent, and not-so-recent, past, berating, insulting, and maligning one another. Or in addressing the nation’s problems and difficulties, they can exercise a civility and respect that might actually get something accomplished. One can only hope.

DSH