""The state of our union is strong,"" said President Bush last week in his State of the Union address. For once, I agree with him.
It's easy to be disappointed with the United States today. Escalation of the disastrous Iraq War is underway. No one is willing to acknowledge that however many or few troops we put in, Iraq will likely descend into a bloodbath. Bush's recognition of Dikembe Mutombo and other non-political people, instead of being a salute to American heroism, came off as a desperate attempt to convince Americans that good things are happening to someone, somewhere.
Here's one bit of real good news: The American system of government is still working. Consider two other political events that happened in the world last week.
In Russia, a court upheld the legality of President Vladimir Putin's decision to shut down the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, a non-governmental organization dedicated to negotiating a peaceful solution to the brutal war in Chechnya. Group members claim this is the Kremlin's payback for the group's reporting on human rights abuses in the war-torn Russian province. This shutdown is the latest in a string of crackdowns on progressive groups in Russia, and activists worry that Putin is reinstituting Soviet-style repression.
Meanwhile, in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez was granted an 18-month period of ""rule by decree"" in order to create a socialized economic system to ease poverty in the country.
The significance of these events lies in how their respective storylines will unfold in the coming months and years. In Russia, no one knows how far Putin will go to crack down on opposition, but in theory, there's no limit on the amount of power the ex-KGB agent could gain and wield.
In Venezuela, granting Chavez ""rule by decree"" is a dangerous precedent. If the economy fails to run the way he expects it to—i.e. if it fails as every other nationalized economy in the past has failed—will Chavez voluntarily surrender his dictatorial powers when the 18 months expire? Did Castro? Did Hitler?
Bush has demonstrated political and personal qualities similar to both of these men. He has bonded with Putin in mutual agreement that the threat of terrorism justifies a crackdown on civil liberties. While Putin has proceeded in this manner virtually unabated, Bush has taken heat from a variety of interest groups, both liberal and conservative, and has seen his policies curtailed by Congress and the courts.
Bush and Chavez share an affinity for belligerent rhetoric, and both like to run autocratic, top-down administrations. Both of their parties have been accused of corruption and tinkering with elections.
The key difference is Chavez appears to be operating more or less unrestrained, while Bush must bow to the realities of strong opposition and term limits. It is hard to imagine Chavez displaying the humility Bush displayed last week when entering the House of Representatives, a hostile chamber able to cut the legs out from under his administration at any time.
Bush plays ball with Democrats because that is how our system operates. The Democratic majority might irritate him to no end, but he will put up with it because the Constitution says he has to, and in our country, that Constitution is more powerful than any individual—even a president.
The United States has problems, but when it comes down to it, our situation is reassuringly stable. We all know what will happen on Jan. 20, 2009. Bush will leave office, a new president and Congress will take over and America will roll on. Tough problems like Iraq will still be there, but stability, not volatility, will carry the day. The current state of domestic and foreign policy is discouraging, but the state of the union is strong.
