Eye on America | Pelosi’s diplomatic gambles embody a new era in U.S. politics

Ross Weingarten Columnist

In the short time that Representative Nancy Pelosi has been speaker of the House, she has received mixed reviews. Her work to pass legislation on issues such as healthcare, immigration and raising the minimum wage have received bipartisan praise. Recently, however, Pelosi has earned a reputation as a bit of a rogue politician. Her tour of the Middle East caused controversy in the region, and ruffled more than a few feathers back in Washington, D.C.

While in Damascus, Pelosi told Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that she had received a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria, according to a recent Washington Post article. The problem with that, of course, was that Olmert had offered no such promise, and soon after reminded Syria and the world that nothing had changed in Israel’s stance towards Damascus. Israel maintains that they will only consider peace when Syria eliminates contact with extremist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah that do not recognize the Jewish state. Furthermore, al-Assad is not the kind of leader that America should be associating with, as his reputation as a corrupt and violent thug suggests.

Immediately upon her return, the White House harshly criticized Pelosi’s attempts in the arena of Middle East diplomacy. Vice President Dick Cheney and others reprimanded the speaker, telling her to leave foreign policy to the president. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about the mixed message that Pelosi’s visit sent. However, the White House was silent in response to a similar trip to Damascus made recently by Republican Representatives Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Robert B. Aderholt of Alabama. Pundits are accusing Pelosi of pursuing foreign policy along party lines. It appears, however, that the White House is guilty of that as well. Nevertheless, Pelosi’s misrepresentation of Olmert’s message, or lack thereof, deserved criticism.

Still, her trip to the Middle East was not all negative. While in Saudi Arabia, she prodded leaders to include women in the nation’s legislative body (currently, women are not allowed to hold political positions in the country). This move was courageous and warranted. Our administration claims to want to democratize the Middle East, yet looks the other way when one of our allies does not allow women to hold public office. In this case, Pelosi’s defiance of the executive was brave. As the first female speaker, she sees it as her responsibility to advocate for the political equality that is finally coming to this country, and of which she is the main beneficiary.

Pelosi’s tour through the volatile region underscores the growing tension between Democrats and Republicans, specifically the president, on Capitol Hill. The Democratic Party-led Congress has begun to challenge Bush on a number of issues, most notably his policy in Iraq and the Middle East. By threatening to cut off funding for the war, both houses have shown the White House that a change of course is necessary. Pelosi’s trip through the region shows that politicians are no longer bottled up by the “U.S. versus Middle East” attitude that prevailed in the post-Sept. 11 America.

However, this does not give Pelosi, or Democrats in general, license to be irresponsible in their criticism of the president. Cheney is correct; Sending mixed messages to the world is dangerous, and gives our enemies reason to believe that we are a fractured and weak nation. Pelosi’s message to Syria crossed the line, and she should rescind her statement as a misunderstanding. There are ways to push and prod that do not directly step on the toes of our allies or our president, and the speaker should remain cautious in instances when she wants to break with the White House party line.

The lesson to be learned from Pelosi’s diplomatic gaffe is not that she is incompetent or unqualified to handle foreign policy issues, but rather that politicians are finally receiving the freedom to speak their minds and break from the Bush administration. It is unimaginable that a politician would have acted and spoken so openly against the president only a few years ago, when any sign of disagreement was taken as support for terrorism and dictatorial regimes like that of Saddam Hussein. I do not mean to excuse Pelosi for her mishandling of the situation with Syria and Israel; I only wish to point out that they represent a new age in American politics.

While the poor results of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disastrous for this country and our international reputation, the silver lining could be that they have weakened the White House enough to allow for dissent and discussion to exist in Washington. And, it seems, Damascus as well.