It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it.

I was surprised when I first heard about this Dubai Ports World (DPW) thing. It didn’t seem like Bush to approve of the fact that several American seaport terminals would be operated by a firm run by the government of an Arab nation. But, only a few news reports later, I grew to agree with the President, that this is a perfectly acceptable thing. I even agree that it would send a bad message to reject the deal, and I *even* agree with his suggestion that racism is driving a good deal of the criticism.

In case you haven’t heard much about this, I’ll quickly go over my rationale: previously unbeknownst to me (and, seemingly, most Americans, most notably those who serve in Congress) the majority of our port terminals are already owned and operated by foreign firms. The US government oversees security at all of them, and does their own checks, unrelated to whoever’s running the port. DPW is not a fly-by-night operation, it’s one of the largest and most-respected companies in the field. I think a case could be made that
we shouldn’t have foreign companies running these ports, that it would improve national security to have them managed by American firms or even (dare I suggest it?) the US Government. But, if one believes that, one should be advocating a complete overhaul of the system, because the number I remember is: 80% of the terminals are already foreign-owned. So, the question before us is: is there any reason to single out DPW? And, unless you are racist or otherwise believe that all Arab countries hate the US equally (even those who are allowing the US to launch attacks on other Arab countries from their soil, as the United Arab Emerates are), I can’t understand why you’d think this company should be singled out. And even if Congress can convince American voters that excluding DPW makes sense here, I can’t imagine that this wouldn’t become a huge selling point to radical Islamic groups who want to promote the idea that the US just hates Arabs. We don’t need any more fuel on that flame…

So, look! President Bush and I really see eye to eye on this one, and most of Congress disagrees with both of us. This may be a first in the six years of this Presidency.

Well, just in case the President has one of his staff keep up on my blog (go ahead and take a few minutes to laugh at that notion… I did), I’ll offer some free advice on where he did our shared cause wrong. Basically it comes down to this: People don’t like you to say “just trust us!” If there was ever a time when the President could get away with that, it hasn’t been in my lifetime (I was born during the Nixon administration). When news of this first broke, the President took his typical stance, something like “we checked it out, you shouldn’t worry about it.” I don’t like it. Usually I disapprove of what he’s advocating, but here I am agreeing with him, and I still don’t like it. And neither does Congress. And he should know better.

So, we’re in this sad state of affairs. Between Democrats who just want to take him to task for anything, and Republicans who are probably shoring up their racist voter bases, Congress is going crazy about this. Ideally, the President should have revealed this in a short speech, explaining things like how many ports are already foreign-owned, and why this company should be considered just as trustworthy as all the rest of them. But, the press got to it before he could spin it, so he starts by playing catch up. Then instead of saying “look, I can understand why this sounds like a bad idea at first blush, but here’s the case for why it’s really a good idea..” and then pelting Congress and the press with all the evidence that the executive branch’s review dug up, he just says “we checked it out, it’s fine, don’t question it.”

Bad move, Mr. President. And it’s too bad, because I agree with you on this one. After the dust settles, maybe we can chat about why it’s philosophically wrong for the US government to be involved in things that could be run by private companies, but the same doesn’t apply to foreign governments. That issue’s too subtle to be talking about right now, though. For now, why don’t you be very open with all the information that you have, encourage Congress to do their review quickly and fairly, and tell the American people that you’re confident that the Congressional review will result in the same recommendation that you’re offering. In short, send the message “you don’t have to trust me. I welcome scrutiny, because this stands up to scrutiny.” But, I know, that’s not your style.

Tags: