Cathy Seipp takes on a subject that is quite familiar to me and that is the indignation, surprise or concern that you elicit when it becomes evident that you support Bush. It’s often almost as if people around me think: “he such a nice guy, well-spoken and reasonable what on earth could have led him astray?” Or, as a reader e-mailed the other day:

I don't understand how such a smart person as yourself can actually believe that there is any hope of building any decent society in Iraq at this point.

Which is pretty much the same thing. Support Bush, argue to stick it out in Iraq and you’re on the fringe. It’s amazing but Cathy at least is an American, imagine the disdain, bewilderment and surprise that friends and family back in Europe deliver at my door on a regular basis, and this I mean literally. My father, a conservative by Dutch standards, sends me a thick monthly envelope of newspaper clippings, most of them not exactly positive about Bush and since a short while they are accompanied with letters that summarize the negative aspects, point by point. He and I can laugh about it, discuss it, and there’s a lot of stuff that I use for the blog, of course.

The deeper issue I think is that Bush’s strong will, unmitigated clarity and unwavering approach to issues is something fairly new. In business and sports that sort of attitude is part and parcel of succeeding and therefore accepted as the norm, but in politics it is not, or it hasn’t been until recently. In fact, since the end of the Second World War until now - let’s call it the new interbellum for lack of better word - it was a skill that wasn’t needed. On the domestic side the post-war tensions created by growing abundance and voter emancipation demanded skilful middle of the road leadership, a clear ideological stance would definitely cost you at the ballot box. The one real international conflict was the Cold War, one that could hardly be managed by throwing in frank and direct language. The only leaders that did practice directness and a measure of uncompromising ideological purity were Thatcher and Reagan, and both to this date are ridiculed by the left-leaning and centrist political establishments on both sides of the Atlantic. So the new leadership style that is so despised by many results directly from the new geopolitical framework in which the United States, and the world, has found itself. It’s also the reason why Kerry is faring poorly, his style of politicking would have worked well in the new interbellum, but it has limited value today.

Dislike of Bush is two-layered: ideology and style. We can talk about different points of view, but the manner in which we do it may well have changed in the new era of global conflict and Bush may have set the standard for a new generation of leaders. Unwavering and direct, it doesn't make you a lot of friends in the short-run, but over a longer period of time it will deliver results.