President Bush has traveled full circle.  In 2000, many harbored grave doubts about the foreign policy aptitude of a one-term governor who, by his own admission, could not find Kosovo on a map.  Heading into Election Day, Al Gore enjoyed a yawning 14-point advantage as the candidate better able to deal with foreign affairs.

Merely by virtue of holding office on September 11th, as a nation under attack rallied around its president, Bush was transformed into a font of foreign policy wisdom. Through the first half of 2002, 70 percent or more of Americans approved of the way he handled foreign affairs.

Today, with criticism swirling around his handling of Iraq, North Korea, Iran and the Hezbollah War, just 39 percent approve of Bush’s foreign policy.

Much of this disdain is performance based. It is difficult to approve of failure; tough to find something worthy of approval in a policy that has created a disaster in Iraq, alienated our allies and allowed the proliferation of nuclear weapons to North Korea and Iran.

However, public dissatisfaction also arises from a principled indictment of the underlying tenets of the president’s foreign policy.

Where Bush is an inveterate unilateralist, Americans prefer multilateralism. Where Bush emphasizes force over diplomacy and persuasion, Americans prefer the latter tools whenever feasible. Where Bush abhors admitting mistakes, Americans want him to fess-up to his errors.

A survey we just completed among voters who pay attention to foreign affairs vividly illustrates public disagreement with the President’s policy.

Only 31 percent share Bush’s commitment to unilateralism, believing that it is better for the U.S. to “act on its own because we can act more decisively and effectively in our national interest.” Nearly twice as many (60 percent) prefer to “work through the U.N