I’m not at all surprised that polls are finding that president Bush’s mind-boggling levels of public support cannot be fully explained by the war effect alone. That model was always too crude. Some leaders will experience an uplift during times of national crisis, but if the public never really respected them, and if the war highlights their weaknesses as much as their stengths, then, as soon as tensions ease, the bubble bursts. Not so with Bush. I think the model here is a different one: what the war did is show Americans what kind of man they elected. His calm, determination, ordinariness, sense of humor and sense of grief, resonated. We bonded. That bond will last and be converted into other things. It does not mean that everyone will agree with his specific policies; but it does mean that his popularity can be used to put extra oomph behind those policies, whatever their popular support. The best analogy is with Margaret Thatcher during the Falklands War. For her entire period in office, she never won an absolute majority of votes, and always had a strong, if divided, opposition. In polls, most Brits disagreed with her on most issues. But they respected her character, her grit, her steel under fire – and it was the war that revealed this more than anything. Bush is not like Thatcher. He’s far more likeable. He is clearly, in my view, what he would call “a good man.” I came to this realization during the campaign – especially compared to his callow rival. The media did their best to cloud this view. The New York Times continues to run an incessant campaign against him – from op-eds to news stories. But this time, the public woke up from their usual (and defensible) preoccupations, took a good, long look for themselves, and liked what they saw. Even Californians. The public looks through ideological litmus tests to, yes, character. And they’re right. That’s why I’m not going to join the chorus of conservative criticism of Bush’s recent Middle East diplomacy. Sorry, I know he’s not a sell-out. I trust him. For me, this underlying trust helps balance out my occasional worries about policy wobbles or tacks. The same goes for many others, I think, far away from the Washington hot-house. And it will last.
CELIBACY IN CONTEXT: John Derbyshire has a splendid and wise piece today about how the broader culture makes priestly celibacy far more difficult today than in ages past. I agree with almost every word. I disagree with his idea that mandatory universal celibacy for priests and homosexuals is a sound idea. Here’s an interesting, brief historical summary of the Church’s history in this regard.
BOTTOMS UP: A Euclid epiphany. Last night, while walking the two beagles, Euclid’s tail actually rose into the air and wagged. That’s a first. It’s been coiled relentlessly underneath her for the last three days. I almost cheered.
The Dish 