President George W. Bush called last week’s inauguration address his “freedom speech.” Spreading liberty overseas is certainly a noble aspiration, but Bush’s plan for defeating tyranny is about as well conceived as University President Lawrence H. Summers’ plan for empowering female science professors—and about as tactfully articulated. When Bush waxed poetic about the “untamed fire of freedom,” for instance, the phrase likely had a very special meaning to the citizens of Fallujah.

Nonetheless, Bush would have us believe that sensitivity and tact are now all the rage at the White House. Condoleeza Rice told the senators at her recent confirmation hearings that “the time for diplomacy is now.” Apparently 2001, when Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol instead of working with other nations to improve it, was not a good time for diplomacy. Nor was it the time for diplomacy, evidently, when Bush enraged the world community by pulling the U.S. out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Then there was March 2003, when Bush abruptly decided to invade Iraq, interrupting the United Nations weapons inspections, which were making steady progress toward discovering—as we now know—that Iraq had no WMD. Was that a good time for diplomacy? Amusingly enough, it wasn’t.

Putting aside any quibbles over such trifling details as the years 2001 through 2004, I agree that a little diplomacy is sorely needed right now. But forgive me for being a little skeptical when Bush renounces his unilateral sins and promises henceforth to be a paragon of diplomatic virtue.

If the president were serious about spreading liberty, he would make it a top priority to improve our international image, particularly in the eyes of the Arab world. A surprisingly candid report released by the Office of Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in September cited “widespread concern among influential observers that something must be done about public diplomacy,” and lamented that the White House seemed untroubled by these concerns. The report warned that Washington’s “messages should seek to reduce, not increase, perceptions of arrogance, opportunism and double standards.” It is these perceptions that help authoritarian regimes that deflect criticism of their rule by demonizing the Satanic West.

Bush’s policy of being soft on torture, for instance, rather undercuts our moral authority. The White House endeared America to no one but the world’s sadistic dictators when in December it pressed Congressional leaders to repeal restrictions on the use of torture by the CIA. And the Attorney General nomination of Alberto Gonzalez—who has called the Geneva conventions “quaint” and said that our laws against torture don’t apply to all “aliens overseas”—didn’t exactly win us any battles in the war of ideas.

Nor has Bush given any indication he intends to engage meaningfully with allied governments. Plans for a good-will tour of Europe just don’t cut it. If Bush wants to demonstrate his commitment to working with America’s allies, he should join other countries in controlling global climate change or achieving the U.N.’s “Millennium” development goals by 2015.

However, that would require Bush to stop treating international institutions like they have cooties, an unlikely prospect. Bush’s actual plan for international engagement, he announced after his election, is to “reach out to others and to explain to others why I make the decisions I make.” Dictating our agenda to others has characterized U.S. foreign policy for four years. More of the same will not strengthen ties with the countries we need on our side to defeat terrorism, AIDS and other global threats.

This conclusion has not been lost on the American people, either: A Nov. 17 New York Times/CBS poll found that 48 percent of Americans disapproved of Bush’s foreign policy, while only 44 percent approved. These numbers did not stop Bush from telling reporters that American voters had “decided that the foreign policy of the Bush administration ought to… stay in place for four more years.”

Sticking stubbornly to an ineffective foreign policy has its flaws, but by choosing to ignore its growing unpopularity, Bush proves that arrogance begins at home. Right after the election, he rushed to cast his 3 percent margin of victory as a sign of America’s sweeping approval.

The aforementioned poll showed Americans rejecting his handling of economic policy 51 percent to 42 percent. On Iraq, 55 percent disapproved of his record, against just 40 percent who approved. Another New York Times/CBS poll released Thursday found that 50 percent of Americans oppose privatizing Social Security and 54 percent oppose Bush’s plan to eliminate taxation on investment income

The president’s approval rating has now dipped below 50 percent. Meanwhile, a Gallup Poll recently asked Americans if they saw Bush as a “uniter” or a “divider” —half of respondents picked “uniter,” and half opted for “divider”. It’s time for Bush to stop gloating and start improving relations with the other 49 percent of the country.

It seems Bush believes he has now earned the right to ignore others. But if the president disregards the views of his fellow Americans and of our allies, the U.S. will be too isolated and fractured to champion its own ideals. And if we are not mindful of how the world perceives us, those perceptions will be defined by our enemies.

Today, for all his talk of diplomacy, Bush is blithely unconcerned about the resentment brewing at home and abroad. Tomorrow, the distrust and discord he is sowing will be remembered by history as the Bush legacy.

Eoghan W. Stafford ’06 is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears regularly.