GovernmentExecutive.com

Politicians are routinely accused of blowing with the wind, of doing whatever seems to be most expedient. Although it's true that the final edition of Profiles in Courage left the printer long ago, we too often tend to think that politicos who take a stand that we agree with are principled and those who take a position we disagree with -- or even find abhorrent -- are not.

Regardless of whether you tend to agree with President Bush on the war in Iraq, regardless of whether you think the war was a good idea, and regardless of whether you think that decisions about the war's conduct were correct, you have to grant that Bush is not taking the path of least resistance. Indeed, there is a considerably better than even chance that in the pantheon of American presidents George W. Bush will share space with those widely viewed as failures.

Bush got to where he is today not by following public opinion but by resisting it, even long after most of the nation soured on U.S. involvement in Iraq. We can question the wisdom of the war and how it has been waged without questioning Bush's resolve.

Similarly, one would be hard-pressed to find an issue that divides the Republican Party more than immigration. Many elements of the traditionally Republican business community -- particularly hotels, restaurants, and landscaping firms -- rely heavily on a steady supply of low-cost, undocumented workers, as do meat processors and agribusinesses. A crackdown on illegal immigration, that is, on the flow of low-paid workers coming into this country, would hurt these industries enormously.

But equally strong and passionate voices within the GOP argue that illegal immigrants exact an enormous financial toll on our social services and public schools, and that American culture as we know it is under siege. These Republicans take particular umbrage at immigrants who fail to learn English and to join mainstream American culture. The GOP foes of creating any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants argue that nothing short of our nation's future is at stake.

Immigration would be an easy issue for Bush to sidestep. He could just allow some future president, maybe even a Democratic one, to juggle this exceedingly hot potato. But instead, he has been pushing comprehensive immigration reform that encompasses a path to citizenship for some of the workers who are in our country illegally. His course is hardly the path of least resistance.

Although I disagree with Bush on the war and agree with him on immigration, I admire his grit and resolve on both. Yet those who disagree with him generally give him little credit for his tenacity and don't even concede that he is paying a terrible price for his advocacy on these issues.

Of course, Bush's support for comprehensive immigration legislation is dividing a Republican Party that he is trying to unite behind the Iraq war. With Democrats and independent voters solidly lined up against the war, Bush is relying primarily on the support of Republicans, who are divided on immigration. The more Bush pushes immigration reform in the coming weeks and months, the more he will fray his relations with those Republicans who vehemently disagree with him.

The 2008 presidential campaign is already well under way, with voters increasingly watching, listening to, and -- if they are lucky enough to live in Iowa or New Hampshire -- probing the candidates a bit. Voters are trying to find a balance between having a candidate who shares their values and ideology and having one who relies on personal judgment, regardless of whether it is popular.

But let's face it, presidential contests don't make it easy for voters to find a good balance and don't encourage candidates to demonstrate their ability to provide one. Too bad.

COMMENTS

• "Just because a stupid person sticks to a bad decision..." Taxpayer, are you talking about yourself again? anonymous Posted May 4, 2007 11:22 AM
• Just because a stupid person sticks to a bad decision is not a reason to think he is dedicated to principles. He is dedicated to stupidity. He does not represent the American people and could never get re-elected. Watch McCain and you will see that he likewise cannot get elected. Competent people will never run for the Presidency because of all the ridiculous stuff we put them through in terms of actions they faced decades earlier or the investments they hold or the success they have had in business. Bill Gates would be stupid to run but his money allows him to influence the government at all levels. In our society money is the name of the game - not the office holder. Where is Osama getting all his money? Where is Hillary's money coming from? The President and the cabinet today need to know how to run and motivate a very large government operation that is largely out of control. congress has allowed the President to take over the process and is very ineffective in guiding or directing National policy and procedures. The government is wasting billions of dollars and Congress just keeps giving the monster more and more. It is unbelievable to me that the Republicans have allowed the government to grow and grow and have increased the deficit more and more every year. The only administration that didn't do this was Clinton's (whom I never voted for) and we saw better performance in the private sector and significant growth in incomes and quality of life. Obviously political parties do not matter any longer for the voter, only for the candidates and the parties ability to raise money to support election runs. That is why Rudy switched parties - the Republicans could get him more money because he saw his party going for Hillary. WHERE IS OUR CHOICE AS VOTERS? There are none anymore but the DoD keeps growing and moving along because they keep hiring retired military to support the military that hired them as civilians because they would do what the military wanted and justify the money the military is wasting on things such as IT sysstems, accounting changes, reiventing government, and other worthless programs to increase their size and job potential when they leave the military. taxpayer Posted April 27, 2007 7:30 AM
• Paul: Regarding immigration, the difference is that our forefathers came to this country legally, through Ellis Island and other ports of entry. I see no reason why someone who sneaks into the U.S. should get preferential treatment over those who obey our laws, and wait years for the privilege of becoming Americans. Too many have forgot that living in this country is a privilege, not a right. There are millions living here today who only come for the money, with no intentions of learning our language and culture, or otherwise assimilating. The old "melting pot" concept of becoming Americans means nothing to many illegal aliens, who only come here for the benefits. Regarding closing the open door, we now have over 300 million people living here, so the same rationale that applied 100 years ago to populate a developing nation is no longer valid. We cannot take in the world, and already have a more generous legal immigration policy than any other nation on earth. Unfortunately, we have to draw the line, because we cannot accomodate the billions who would like to live here! I assume you are a kind and generous person, but even your generosity has limits. After all, you can only accomodate so many guests in your home, and the same applies to the United States. Regarding the role of this administration in history, I think in the future, historians will not be as brutal as today's critics are, because from their perspective, it will be seen that Pres. Bush, though flawed as are all of us, took a stand against terrorism, and provided leadership when this country badly needed it. GovExec.com reader Posted April 25, 2007 11:07 AM