One of the most damaging criticisms leveled against US President Jimmy Carter was that he failed to lead, acting as the head of government instead of guiding the nation by setting the agenda, inspiring the masses, and altering a status quo that Carter himself infamously described as a “malaise.” There are few parallels between Carter and George W. Bush, but critics of the Bush are increasingly attacking the White House’s ability to lead. A recent Newsweek poll found that 58 percent of Americans — 21 percent of Republicans — wish the president’s time in office would end immediately.

In fairness to Bush, second term presidents traditionally lose power, particularly true on domestic matters. This explains why many presidents, including Bush’s immediate predecessor Bill Clinton, focus on international issues. Second term presidents, cloaking themselves with America’s superpower status, are able to bolster their legacies by playing the role of world statesman, removing themselves from the rigors of internecine American politics. But Bush’s inability to alter the status quo or mobilize popular support for his policies on foreign issues have led many to conclude that America is suffering from a leadership void which could compound existing problems and create new ones.

There have been several developments since the November congressional elections which provided President Bush with an opportunity to alter course in the Middle East in a manner which strengthened his political hand. These include the unveiling of the Iraq Study Group report, the formation of Bush’s new Iraq strategy, a regional visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and most recently the Saudi-brokered formation of a Palestinian unity government.

But to the chagrin of Congress, the American public, and regional allies alike, the White House has yet to make any decision which inspires confidence that the United States is charting a course more likely to foment stability. The growing ranks of Bush critics instead feel recent American moves have made a catastrophic military conflict with Iran more likely.

The Iraq Study Group report included dozens of regional policy recommendations, including calls for active US involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and direct negotiations with Syria and Iran. In essence, the report concluded that a satisfactory resolution in Baghdad required extensive diplomatic work in Jerusalem, Damascus, and Tehran - not to mention Cairo and Riyadh.

While congressional Democrats and many Republicans embraced the ISG report, the Bush administration chose to concoct its own strategy. The “surge” plan calls for increased troop levels in Iraq and establishing benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Notably absent were calls for increased diplomatic activities; the “surge” dismissed connectivity between Iraq and problems in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq. The public’s reaction to the new strategy has been overwhelmingly negative, and both the House of Representatives and Senate are poised to pass resolutions objecting to it this week — essentially a vote of no-confidence in Bush’s leadership.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has engaged in new rounds of diplomacy. Vice President Cheney made an unpublicized trip to Saudi Arabia, while Secretary Rice embarked upon a regional visit which included stops in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. She is expected to return to host a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Feb. 18. There have also been new discussions — without the requisite consultation of Congress —about providing military assistance to the embattled governments of Lebanon’s Foud Siniora and Abbas.

Little is known about Cheney’s visit, which was conducted with the secretiveness that characterizes the vice president. But Rice’s jaunt was deemed ineffective from the start, with regional leaders cringing when the secretary stated upon embarking that she had no new plans to discuss. Allegedly, her trip focused on Iran.

Regional actors, well aware of the perils of the status quo, have recently engaged in a number of moves which could, if supported by the international community, break deadlocks.

Most notably, Saudi Arabia brokered an agreement between bickering Palestinian factions which could end the blockade of Palestine, opening the door for much-needed assistance in Gaza and the West Bank and possibly creating a Palestinian government which can negotiate with Israel. Egypt, which has long sought to re-activate the dormant peace process, has continued to work with Palestinian factions and Israel. Riyadh, along with the Arab League, has also played a pivotal role in Lebanon.

But already it seems the US is balking at the new Palestinian accord. In Lebanon, some congressional leaders oppose arming the March 14 coalition in Beirut, fearing it may spark a civil war and that US weaponry could eventually fall into the hands of Hezbollah and other hostile factions. In Iran, even casual observers see the recent US military buildup in the Gulf as evidence of US intent to attack Iran.

Collectively, the Bush administrations moves have done little to satisfy the increasingly angry public. This has resulted in strengthening the political hand of the Democratic-controlled Congress, which holds narrow majorities in the House and Senate. Looking increasingly rigid and unwilling to change, President Bush’s leadership — or lack there of — is now the prime topic of discussion in Washington.

— David Dumke is principal of the Washington-based MidAmr Group. E-mail: [email protected].