The Arab-Israeli peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland has been greeted by widespread skepticism. Few believe any progress can be made during the one-day meeting which will include the representatives of nearly 50 countries and organizations.
Aside from the fact that there may be far too many cooks in the proverbial kitchen, expectations are also low for a number of other reasons. Among them, three of the principals — Mahmoud Abbas, Ehud Olmert, and George W. Bush — come to the table with overwhelmingly weak hands. Perhaps most daunting is the simple fact that resolving a 60-year-old problem is no small challenge.
Yet, with extremely low expectations, world leaders converge on the picturesque Annapolis to take another crack at peace. But in spite of charges that the Bush administration is once again engaging in photo-diplomacy rather than substance, the conference is being held with the support of the Arab League — and attended by all key regional players minus Iran.
Pondering recent history, one discovers that low expectations have never been an impediment to the much underestimated George W. Bush. In 2000, Democrats lampooned the then Texas governor as a simpleton ill prepared to govern and manage global politics. Bush’s opponent, Vice President Al Gore, entered the presidential campaign with both a sparkling resume and a well-established reputation for intellect.
Democrats could not possibly fathom the cerebral vice president losing to Bush, and in consequence overlooked the Texan by pitting the match in intellectual David vs. Goliath terms. Republicans, however, craftily countered this strategy by playing up the underdog nature of their candidate. Gore increasingly looked like the man of the government, while Bush subtly assumed the status of the man of the people.
The battle of expectations came to head during the first presidential debate between Bush and Gore. Prior to the debate, Republican strategists intentionally praised the debating prowess of Gore, noting his experience, intelligence, and lengthy record of debate victories — including a memorable joust against populist Ross Perot. The expectations among pundits and the public alike were that Gore would trounce Bush, and that any other outcome would be a miracle. But during the debate Bush proved while he wasn’t an intellectual giant, he was no one’s fool. Gore, by contrast, appeared arrogant, turning off droves of voters. It was the turning point of the campaign that resulted in Bush assuming the presidency.
Since that pivotal moment, Bush has time and time again used low expectations as an ally. Few believed newly elected Bush — who was deemed the victor only after a controversial court decision — would amount to more than a one-term president who would never quite gain legitimacy, let alone pass any notable laws or oversee and shape a unique period in American and world history.
But during his first term Bush managed to pass notable domestic reforms in education and health care. On the international level, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks emboldened the president, who led America into two wars and a prolonged campaign against terrorism.
These moves, coupled with a fearful American public, enabled Bush to win a narrow but decisive re-election battle in 2004. Even after the Democrats bested Bush’s party in the 2006 elections, Bush has managed to maintain and escalate the war in Iraq. He has rarely been overruled by Congress, which itself suffers from poor approval ratings due to its inability to force the White House to change its policies.
To be sure, Bush’s record is subject to considerable debate; today the American public judges his era overwhelming negatively. But for a politician so often underestimated, even his sharpest critics must concede that he has vastly exceeded his political expectations.
And so as the chorus of critics who have prejudged Annapolis as a failure would have been wise to exercise caution in their predictions. As Bush has repeatedly proved, low expectations can yield unexpected results. If the conference produces anything, pundits may be signing a different tune.
Consider the overwhelmingly harsh verdict over the alleged motives of both Bush and his energetic, if not entirely effective Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. One charge is that the entire enterprise is intended solely to produce a photo opportunity — stagecraft, not statecraft, as veteran negotiator Dennis Ross noted. But if this is the White House’s sole intent, it has burned considerable capital merely to produce the picture. This includes the 100,000 miles Rice has reportedly traveled in order to get the parties on board. Certainly, the Bush administration wants something else — perhaps an agreement, the emergence of a “coalition of the willing” for peace, or a check on those it deems obstructionist.
By no means is this to suggest Annapolis will yield the lofty results which Abbas and others want — a lasting, final peace agreement. There are simply too many variables, too many players, and too little time for that to occur. But it is likely that whatever is produced in Annapolis will exceed the low expectations of pundits. If this is indeed the result, it comes from a script that Bush is very familiar with: Expect nothing, get something, and reap the political rewards.
— David Dumke is a political analyst and principal of the MidAmr Group. E-mail: [email protected].
