But his simplistic equation -- elections = freedom = democracy = peace -- has been running into a bit of trouble lately.
The president hyped the deeply flawed presidential and parliamentary elections in Egypt as steps toward democracy. But the result was a dramatic rise in votes for the outlawed Islamic brotherhood and Mubarak 's principal contender for the top job sent to jail.
He endlessly spun the purple fingers of the Iraqi elections as victories for democracy. But the result was zero in terms of bringing the Iraqi people together, the coalition of Islamic fundamentalist parties getting most of the votes, and now eagerly cementing their ties to the Iranian theocracy.
Then came the Katrina of Middle East politics. Beginning In 2002, President Bush began urging the Palestinians to elect new leaders "not compromised by terror" and poured hundreds of millions into keeping Hamas, the militant Islamic movement, from winning. But the result was a landslide for the party dedicated to a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem: The destruction of Israel.
And, even in the face of this electoral disaster, the president simply could not stop spinning. "I like the competition of ideas," Mr. Bush said in a news conference. "I like people who have to go out and say, 'Vote for me, and here's what I'm going to do.' There's something healthy about a system that does that. And so the elections yesterday were very interesting."
The Bush Administration, along with the even more generous European supporters of "a new, improved " Palestinian Authority, clearly misread the temperature of Palestinian voters. My personal view is that the overwhelming majority of Hamas voters cast their ballots for change, not terror.
But whatever their motivations, the West is now stuck with the facts. The election of Hamas was another stick in the eye of the president 's prescription.
Which leaves the U.S. and its allies without any good options at all. The heads of the American, British and German governments made all the predictable noises: We will not provide funding for a terrorist organization. Hamas must renounce terror, recognize Israel 's right to exist, and negotiate a two-state solution.
So, predictably, did Hamas. Israeli and U.S. policies were responsible for their generations of misery. Unless they changed, Hamas would continue to be Hamas. And it would turn to its oil-rich friends in the Middle East to provide the money the Palestinian people so desperately need.
That development could set the stage for the Arab League to finally agree on something. And, in the process, the U.S. would become even more of a pariah than it is already. No more roadmap. No more 'honest broker '.
As the Associated Press reports from Jerusalem, "No more screeds against the 'Zionist enemy '' or threats to 'plant death in every corner '' of Israel. Since winning Palestinian parliament elections last week, Hamas has moderated its usually bombastic rhetoric in subtle ways that fall well short of Western demands to renounce terror and recognize Israel's right to exist but suggest the group is fumbling for ways to gain international acceptance. "
The problem is that while incrementalism may be the only reasonable expectation, time is on no one 's side in the Israeli-Palestinian debacle. It may take many months to get the parties back to any serious negotiations, but that has to be the goal in getting to the 'beginning of the end ' of the conflict.