Those who spend a lot of time around George W. Bush say he does not welcome dissent in his presence, giving the impression of a boss who wants to hear only what he likes to hear. Which, for him, must have made the Coretta Scott King funeral like eating sawdust without butter.

But no matter how unpleasant it was for Bush to endure the occasional jab from some of the prominent Democratic eulogists, including former President Jimmy Carter, he might want to consider more opportunities to show humility in the face of criticism. The president handled the digs aimed his way at last week’s funeral with such grace and tolerance that it might have done him some good.

So many Americans have come to believe that the president is stubborn and arrogant that he needs to find more venues for showing that he can be a good listener. What better way to exhibit open-mindedness than to quietly take your lumps in public?

Sure, Bush fidgeted a bit when the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, detoured his eulogy of Mrs. King into yet another reminder that Bush found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And the look on the president’s face indicated that he recognized the implicit criticism of his own domestic surveillance program when Carter recalled how the federal government wiretapped the Kings decades ago.

Disparaging remarks by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others were not lost on Bush, but at least he did not disassemble into the same sort of surly facial twists and defensive body language that he used in the 2004 campaign debates, when Democratic nominee John Kerry rattled him with a barrage of attacks. Despite the headline-making criticism of Bush at the King funeral, he probably won the day by taking his hits without visible complaint and appearing to be a martyr wronged by inappropriate politicization of a funeral.

Not that there was anything wrong with voices of protest at a King funeral — a point that the president’s detractors should have made in noting their disagreements with Bush. Does anyone really believe that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had he survived his wife and delivered her eulogy last week, would have held his punches about a war he surely would oppose, or kept mum about the sort of warrantless eavesdropping that he too experienced? No, the Kings were not government officials accustomed to overlooking society’s problems. They were protesters. If anything, it is surprising that King’s rhetorical and political heirs did not give the president even more of a drubbing than they did.

They probably would have heated up their words if Bush had not been there — another reason it was wise for him to show up. How much worse it would have looked if his absence had freed his opponents to really unload on him and make him seem the coward for dodging it.

Despite the public relations value Bush might have derived from a bad situation, there was a dark side for him in the presence of three former presidents: his own father, Carter and Bill Clinton.

Carter was the only one of the three to voice any negativity about the incumbent president. But as all of them were together on the stage, Bush may well have been pondering the significance of their views on the main project of his presidency: the war in Iraq. Carter and Clinton have made their opposition quite clear. Both have publicly called it a mistake, although neither counsels immediate withdrawal.

Even Bush senior, who has long ducked questions about his views on the invasion of Iraq, appears to be no fan of the war, offering no complaints as veterans of his own administration — including Secretary of State James A. Baker III and National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft — sided against it from the start. And there is the revelatory scene in James Risen’s new book, “State of War,” describing President Bush angrily hanging up the phone on his father, who “was disturbed that his son was allowing Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and a cadre of neoconservative ideologues to exert broad influence over foreign policy.’’

Lucky for Bush, he and his predecessors were gathered around the coffin of a civil rights icon, and not convened for a public airing of their candid views about foreign policy.

If Bush would go further than just appearing to accept dissent, as he did at the funeral, he might manage to be the “uniter” he once promised. His tepid approval ratings suggest that independent voters, and even some moderate Republicans, are yearning for him to shed the partisan belligerence for common ground. But sadly, Bush is more likely to keep on doing things his own way with hardly a nod to alternative views, making him a decisive divider who might one day find himself feeling in every situation as he must have felt in Atlanta last week: painfully alone, surrounded by critics.

Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS. He can be reached at ccrawford@cq.com.