Suspicion Creates a Catch-22 for Politicians

Pessimistic pundits of left and right agree that the cynicism and unpredictability characterizing this election year are the result of a "leadership crisis." It is as if we've become convinced that anything a politician does is a mistake and probably a cover-up of something worse.

Although the ability to criticize our incumbent and potential leaders is what keeps democracy and newspapers alive, this distrust can backfire. Disillusioned voters become so habitually suspicious that they find fault with any decision a politician makes, and rush to support a candidate with no platform simply because a person who makes no promises tells no lies.

George Bush may be the candidate most damaged by this mood of suspicion. As the president, he can hardly claim to be an outsider, and his position as our present leader makes him and his administration the focal point for Americans' resentment about our current state of crisis, whether or not such blame is justified. One result of this is that the Bush administration is derided for failing to provide strong leadership, yet derided even more when it dares to attempt that role.

The reaction to Bush's hard-line stance at the Earth Summit is a perfect example. Before the environmental summit, voters and the media had criticized him for doing nothing about the economy and for giving foreign policy priority over domestic affairs.

Probably with this in mind, he took a courageous stance in Rio by defending American economic interests against an international consensus. Yet he was quickly mocked at home as the "spoilsport" in Rio, the undiplomatic one who selfishly focused on his own country's needs while the rest of the world was sharing and playing nicely.

Bush's objections to certain aspects of the Rio treaties were all based on his decision to give America's economic problems priority, a choice that many of his current detractors recently clamored for him to make.

The treaties contained provisions for reducing emissions of global warming gases and protecting endangered species. In their original form, these provisions would have undercut American patent laws and further restricted the development of industry and technology, making America even less able to compete in the world market. Moreover, Bush objected to provisions requiring America to donate billions of dollars to aid Third World countries in developing environmentally safe technology.

Although Bush's liberal critics often faulted him for spending more money abraod than on domestic problems, he is universally portrayed as stingy and shortsighted once he attempts to reverse this trend. Trying to provide the type of leadership that the voters and the media have demanded, he is instead condemned for it.

Not all our political needs or principles are compatible. Sometimes, as at the Rio summit, one has to be compromised for the sake of the other. But it appears that whichever Bush chooses, attention is focused only on the compromise, not on the principle he was trying to defend. Even if the kind of leadership we want is nothing but "leading the people where they want to go," we make this impossible by wanting, on principle, to go in the opposite direction whenever someone tries to lead.

Dan Quayle's critics reacted the same way to his attempt to infuse a dose of morals back into politics. Granted, the date on the medicine had expired around 1952.

Yet the criticism was not merely directed at the inadequacy and insensitivity of his definition of family values; taunted as "Reverend Quayle," he met with disapproval for daring to "preach" about family values at all. Never mind that voters often deplore politicians' failure to address the country's lack of moral direction.

The more Quayle is derided for trying to address that need, however imperfectly, the less future politicians will try. Already H. Ross Perot thinks the word "principles" is nothing but a smokescreen to conceal one's values and positions.

Bush and Quayle are not perfect leaders, and the past four years have hardly been perfect years for America. However, it is time we asked ourselves how much of the current "leadership crisis" is due to our presumption that politicians are guilty until proven innocent, and that contempt for the government is a sign of intellectual superiority.