How Do You Change a President’s Mind?

The meeting on CNN of U.S. policy chiefs with the American--and world--public on the U.S.-led showdown with Iraq over its refusal to permit U.N. weapons inspections was a remarkable demonstration of the power of the electronic media to convey the reality of American political life. It should happen more often.

The enthusiasm of about a dozen demonstrators made for a dramatic broadcast, even on radio. There were questions from a pro-Iraqi professor in the audience, and more than a little concurrence of the polls that show only 41% of Americans support an air campaign against Iraq, not because they don’t want to fight, but because they recognize that a campaign that doesn’t topple Saddam is just a holding action.

Indeed, containment is what it’s all about. So said Defense Secretary William Cohen repeatedly. For a long time to come, Americans won’t support a ground action against an enemy unless it presents a grave threat to ourselves or a very close ally.

What is interesting is that U.S. policy is not subject to change, so far as we can tell. The town meeting was an exercise in salesmanship and persuasion that failed to sell or persuade, although Cohen in particular made a good case for his strategy. You can’t argue with the effectiveness of the U.N. weapons inspections in eliminating much of the Iraqi threat, and therefore can’t argue against its continuance.

But that strategy doesn’t fulfill the American public’s desire to eliminate Saddam. It’s a rare example of the public being more hawkish than a Democratic administration. Democrats, you’ll recall, have taken us into Korea and Vietnam, while Republicans got us out of Korea and Vietnam but took us into the Persian Gulf--and no one yet has gotten us out.

It’s that persistence of conflict, that defiance of resolution, that give us all pause. Why repeat the same scenario again and again for one lone individual?

So, as a result of its de facto commitment to Saddam’s survival, the administration’s policy doesn’t have the strong public support any warlike action against another nation ought to enjoy. Moreover, there is no mechanism in our constitutional system for making a president change his mind about a military policy, and neither the president nor his advisors are willing to make any changes themselves.

At that impasse, we go forward without a strong base of support at home and with increasing opposition abroad.

Was the “town meeting” a town meeting? No, not really. The template for that requires alterations and amendment when demanded by a majority of the public. It was a powerful illustration, though, of American democracy’s willingness to accommodate opposing points of view.

We got the impression that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright cut short her remarks because of the heckling, and that’s regrettable. Hecklers or not, we need to hear more from her while the crisis remains in the diplomatic stage.

We’ve come no closer to resolving the impasse; perhaps, like a real town meeting, there should have been a vote.