This much should be granted on the question of Bush's decline in approval as a foreign policy leader, namely that public expectations are indisputably set by the media. If it were assumed that the military exercise in Iraq would require conventional sacrifices in human life, measured by a century of experience, then current losses being sustained would not have figured largely in an accounting of the Bush decline.
The New York Times poll tells us that about one-half of the American people believed that removing Saddam Hussein from power was the main reason for taking military action in Iraq. "About a quarter said the main reason was to protect the oil supply." How did that idea get about? Protecting the oil supply wasn't advertised by President Bush or any of his spokesmen. Was that one-quarter who thought it the main motive, the same Americans who tend to reach for materialist explanations for policy decisions? Who feeds them? CNN? Dan Rather? The Nation magazine?
The curious observer can intelligently conclude that the fall by Bush in foreign policy leadership runs hand in hand with reversals in Iraq and in the U.N. But hardly hand in hand with the movement of the economy. In July 2002 Bush's approval as economic overseer was at 56 percent. The economic indices, since then, have been sharply favorable; yet unemployment lingers. Four out of ten people, the poll tells us, worry that one person in their household will lose a job in the next year.
The poll reflects either insubstantial leadership by Mr. Bush, or erratic judgment by the people polled.