Will they EVER learn?
The buzz-buzz-buzz going through Washington is the ever-present swarm of liberal consternation as the journalistic world tries to grasp (not for the first time), "Just who does George Bush think he is?"
As the saying goes, he's the "Leader of the FREE World" and he's trying to put some meaning back into that title.
No sooner had the President finished his second inaugural address than critics began to question his meaning - as if his plain-spoken style for the previous four years could provide no clue.
(The speech) has alarmed some critics, who say it suggests a major and potentially mistaken expansion of U.S. foreign policy goals or merely empty rhetoric. They have asked whether the speech's soaring language has any practical application as the president goes about the gritty work of day-to-day diplomacy, and, if it does not, what meaning does it have?Persued by these questions, the White House sought to answer them, insisting there is no real change from the policy they have forumulated and enacted for the past three years.
White House officials said yesterday that President Bush's soaring inaugural address, in which he declared the goal of ending tyranny around the world, represents no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy but instead was meant as a crystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere....The riposte from the media could not have been more scripted.White House officials argued that some observers have read more into the speech than is there. "The speech was carefully and purposely nuanced," said presidential speechwriter and policy adviser Michael J. Gerson. "We are dealing with a generational struggle. It's not the work of a year or two."
The speech Bush delivered Thursday at the Capitol appeared to set the United States on a new course in foreign policy, a pivot from the focus on terrorism, which has defined Bush's presidency since Sept. 11, 2001, to confronting tyranny as the enemy that threatens global security. In the 21-minute speech, Bush mentioned neither Iraq nor terrorism but defined what he called a generations-long struggle to encourage democracy to make America safe from terrorist attack....So what we have is a President who tries to deliver an inspirational and decisive call for freedom in the world, a media elite so entangled by their slavishness to politics and bureaucracy that they cannot avoid questioning the meaning and scope of every word, then that same media tries to minimalize the entire package as spin based on their very own own inability to comprehend it.Presidential advisers also said they were not trying to roll back the speech on the day after, pointing to language in the address that they said made it clear that the goal of ending tyranny would not be accomplished with cookie-cutter policies or unrealistic ambitions. For example, Bush declared that ending tyranny would not be accomplished primarily through armed conflict, and he made distinctions between dealing with outlaw states that actively support terrorism and those whose human rights records may be poor but that have shown a willingness to change. (my emphasis)
It's simple, people. Remember "The Bush Doctrine"? For three years we've recited it this way: "You're with us, or against us." The President has made it plain that the "us" does not stand for "U.S." but for democracy, for FREEDOM.
Nations of the world take note: You're either willing to entertain the notion that your countries should some day embrace the principles of democracy and freedom, or you're against the long-term goals of the United States of America and the other democratic institutions of the West.
Comments
The real problem with the President's speech (and with entire misbegotten presidency) is that where he says freedom, what he really means is freedom as he defines it. Freedom and democracy mean more than simply casting a vote for a preordained list of people- it means the willingness to engage in the process in the first place. The so-called election that will take place in Iraq next week is not democracy- it's a forced choice, no different from the car salesman who responds to the question "Can I get it in blue?" with a "Don't you think red is nicer? You can drive a red one home today!"
We have imposed a vision on a part of the world that has made clear that they don't want that vision- and you call this democracy?
Democracy has no special place at the head of the table- it is one option among many, and no matter how we as Americans may feel about that, the essence of self-government is that people get to decide not merely the people in charge, but also the form of the government itself. What we are doing in Iraq is handing the Iraqi people a menu, allegedly called democracy, but told them that must pick something- no substitutions. That is not freedom, that is the very definition of tyranny. A forced choice is no choice at all.
Posted by: Charles | January 24, 2005 10:03 AM
First off, if every discussion is going to get this inane, I should admit I don't like pure democracy. I'm a republican (small R) who has never trusted the mob. But for the purposes of generic discussion, I use the term "democracy" in its common use, meaning "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." (It's beyond my ken why we need to say this. As I said to Peter a couple of weeks ago: "Look it up." If you need to look up the precise definition for "democracy", you probably need to go elsewhere for your discussions.)
On the other hand Charles, by your definition, there could never be any democratic institution beyond the New England town hall, freedom could only be defined by each individual for his own interpretation, and consequently all other government is illegitimate. Moreover, America should have never existed because no one ever elected the Founders to write the Constitution for us. Of course, everyone is free to choose utopia or anarchy, but either choice limits one's support to those with no desire to live in the real world.
Will the Iraqis have democracy and freedom? We have yet to see, but is it right to consign them to despotism without giving them even a chance to seek some sort of self-government? The elections on Sunday will allow the winning parties to write their own Constitution - that's more democracy than we were given in convening the Constitutional Convention and the ratifying conventions in each state. I consider that neither better or worse than the path we took - a path that, for all its warts, has led to the most free and prosperous society the world has ever known.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill
Posted by: Chris![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.theblackrepublican.net/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 24, 2005 06:09 PM
In the last 40 years every president's inauguration speech has pitted freedom and democracy against tyranny and oppression. Every inauguration speech called on America’s freedom as the only path against tyranny. Those speeches even cited that America's freedom is only a reality if all people are free.
"No man can be fully free while his neighbor is not. - Richard M. Nixon, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1969"
"Because we are free we can never be indifferent to the fate of freedom elsewhere." - Jimmy Carter, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1977
(I have listed calls for freedom form inaugurations at my blog: http://www.runningmate.blogspot.com)
If every modern presidential predecessor to Bush called on the generational fight of world freedom, then why the criticism now? It is petty. Charles, to even feign that the Iraqi people would prefer the torturous regime of Saddam to any other form of government, is just inane. If you don’t support their freedom, then you are supporting their suppression. You say Charles that “We have imposed a vision on a part of the world that has made clear that they don't want that vision- and you call this democracy?” I assume that Afghanistan and Palestine are not included in your reality, or the 14 Million registered in Iraq? And in you criticism, you provide no solutions. Just empty theocracy.
Posted by: Discovery | January 25, 2005 11:53 AM
Hello.
I'm from Russia.I really appreciate Mr.Bush as a politician,he is a strong leader and tries to take great pains in combating terrorism all over the world,but sometimes his vision of a conflict do not meet the real situation in the country,where he starts doing so.
During his time in office we(I mean Russia and the USA) have made great progress in bilateral international relations.
I'd like to cite one more reason why I don't like his foreign policy (by the way,as many americans do as well). You see,from time to time I see that his deeds contradict with his wants,Mr.Bush's foreign policy priorities are may be too aggressive regarding his initial willing to do what it takes for what is right.
Writing this message a wonderful idea occured to me:what about combining our efforts in developing space progress instead of trying to impose our wills on a nation which is meant to be a threat for global security and peace?(I mean Russia as well)
Posted by: Ilya | February 19, 2005 07:54 AM