Safire: The Age of Liberty

The New York Times ^ | 11/10/03 | William Safire

[Pokey78]

NEW ORLEANS — With a strong sense of history, George W. Bush last week made the case for "a forward strategy" of idealism in American foreign policy. He dared to place his Big Idea — what has become the central theme and purpose of his presidency — in the direct line of aspirations expressed by three of the past century's most far-seeing and controversial U.S. presidents.

He evoked Woodrow Wilson trying to make the world safe for democracy in 1918; then F.D.R. in 1941 giving hope of freedom to peoples enslaved by Naziism; finally, Ronald Reagan telling a skeptical Britain's Parliament in 1982 that a historic turning point had been reached and Communist tyranny could not stop the march of freedom. "From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle," Bush said. "The advance of freedom is the calling of our time."

That is called a theme. Did he develop that theme in his speech, marshaling his arguments both rationally and evocatively at a time of crisis? Did he succeed in setting his vision of our mission in the world before the American people in a detailed, coherent and inspiring way worthy of rallying their support?

I think he did — not only because I agree that protecting and extending freedom has always been America's "calling," but because I was able to read and re-read the serious speech in its entirety.

You have probably not had that opportunity. Most people did not have the chance to catch the whole speech on cable, and found only snippets on broadcast TV; the longest excerpt of the half-hour address ran less than four minutes on prime-time network news.

Some newspapers front-paged accounts of the news in the speech, noting his departure from the realpolitik of Nixon, the elder Bush and others: "60 years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." But not even The Times gave readers the chance to study the full text in the paper. (It's on the Times Web site at www.nytimes.com/2003/ 11/06/politics/06TEXT-BUSH.html.)

This speech clearly articulated the policy this Bush will be remembered for. If you are interested in knowing where he wants to take this country and why, you will find it worth reading all the way through. Reading summaries and excerpts and critiques lets editors and analysts do the thinking for you. Film snippets of applause lines won't help you grasp the import, which you should have even if you want to disagree knowledgeably. A carefully constructed speech, like a poem or a brief or a piece of music, has a shape that helps makes it memorable. Bush's "age of liberty" address begins on a note of historical optimism: "We've witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy . . . It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy." (He chose "influential" rather than "powerful" to stress our democratic example.)

Then he takes us on a tour d'horizon of the state of freedom today: from "outposts of oppression" like Cuba, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe to China with its "sliver, a fragment of liberty," to the West Bank leaders who are "the main obstacles to peace." Egypt, having "shown the way toward peace" (under Sadat) "now should show the way toward democracy."

He returns to his opening theme in dealing with Iraq, where failure "would embolden terrorists around the world," but where "a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." (Failure gets the conditional "would," but success the certain "will.")

But let me not join the summarizers. Invest a half-hour in reading this moving exposition of the noble goal of American foreign policy. And note the subtlety in Bush's concluding reference to the deity in underscoring our opportunity in this age of liberty: "And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom." 

[okie01]

Safire got it.

The Times didn't.

Or didn't want to...

[Spruce]

A truly great speech.

Transcript

[Cicero]

Although he never comes out and says it directly, this column is a scathing indictment of the media. The President of the United States gives one of the most important speeches in years, and none of the networks bother to show it. Even the New York Times, which used to call itself the Newspaper of Record, can't be bothered to print it. It's all too obvious why: because they hate Bush.

Yet they have plenty of time to show the Nine Dwarfs, day after day, doing their little sock puppet routines.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

And note the subtlety in Bush's concluding reference to the deity in underscoring our opportunity in this age of liberty: "And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom." 

Great review of an inspiring speech.

[July 4th]

Many people glossed over this speech. I believe it will be remembered as one of the best of his entire Presidency. Along the lines of Margaret Thatcher at Bruges, or Reagan at Normandy.

[Mudcat]

Thanks for posting that link to the transcript, Spruce -- you're right, it is a great speech!

[maica]

C-SPAN did not find it worthy of coverage either live or in the overnight replays. Meanwhile they can repeat such important events as anti-Bush protests.

How Brian Lamb can claim impartiality is beyond me! I haven't checked their schedule yet, but what are the chances that they managed to find time for Algore's speech?

[maica]

I am physically ill now - I just checked the C-SPAM schedule. They are playing his speech now on 2 and talking about it on 1. They played it live yesterday and repeated it once during the night.

[Graymatter]

That speech was magnificent. I hope he repeats it until the media can't ignore it anymore.
Without the Bush Doctrine, we'd still be better off with Bush than the alternative, but he'd only be keeping the chair warm.
When I was young, America stood for something---and wouldn't stand for some things. George Bush has brought that America back from the bend-over position.

[mushroom]

Why is it that no one ever discusses the very best reason for promoting democracy? I can think of no state with a representative government that has ever attacked another state with a representative government. Seems like a good argument for getting rid of the rest.

[RinaseaofDs]

Agree completely. I caught snippets and just couldn't believe what I was hearing. Its a speech that will be taught to school children.

One thing I noticed. If you look at how the founders referenced God, and contrast it to how Bush referenced God, it is remarkable how far society has fallen in terms of its identification with anything religious.

[Stingray51]

There is a lot in the speech that conservatives should be concerned about lest we cheerlead the nation's plunge into neo-conservative utopianism. I hope everyone reads it rather than simply relying on Safire's endorsement.

[JohnGalt]

It was probably just coincidence that Bush gave this speech where he declared success in the "global democratic revolution" the day before Trotsky's birthday.

[Stingray51]

Yeah, I would imagine so. It reads more like Peggy Noonan feel good-ism than serious thinking.

On with the Global Democratic Revolution!

[68skylark]

I can think of no state with a representative government that has ever attacked another state with a representative government.

Yes! Things like happiness, prosperity and liberty are not zero sum games (despite what leftists say). When one country advances, it makes things better for all of us.

The War of 1812 is the only conflict I know of between two reasonably representative governments. It was a long time ago and it's not likely to be repeated.

[WOSG]

Yes, I read the whole speech and was thrilled to see a defense of liberty and a call to advance it. Any decent Conservative who loves freedom knows "freedom isnt free". Even a no-nothing isolationist can be made to understand concepts of our duty to freedom, and not just enjoy its fruits while selfishly ignoring the pleas of those who suffer under oppression.

President Bush said:

The progress of liberty is a powerful trend. Yet, we also know that liberty, if not defended, can be lost. The success of freedom is not determined by some dialectic of history. By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice. In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.

The sacrifices of Americans have not always been recognized or appreciated, yet they have been worthwhile. Because we and our allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan are democratic nations that no longer threaten the world. A global nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union ended peacefully -- as did the Soviet Union. The nations of Europe are moving towards unity, not dividing into armed camps and descending into genocide. Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for -- and the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)

[mushroom]

I don't think you can reasonably call the British government of 1812 as representative. The monarchy virtually ignored Parliament at the time.

[Stingray51]

You picked two paragraphs that I happen to agree with. What I disagree with is the notion that we should seek to democratize the entire world, particularly the Middle East, both as a moral endeavor and as an effective means of protecting ourselves. This is nothing more than Wilsonianism and it is likely to be about as effective.

[WOSG]

"What I disagree with is the notion that we should seek to democratize the entire world,"

What particular segment of humanity is undeserving of freedom and democracy?

If you really think some people or nations dont deserve it, I've got a bone to pick with you.

If you answer "None", then it is simply a matter of strategy, tactics, and what price we are willing to pay to advance this noble goal. "Pay any price, bear any burden"? Nope, *thats* hubris. And it's not GWB's formula.

But there is hubris also in imaging we can wall ourselves off from the world and escape from being affected by the terroristic mis-rule in other nations -- 9/11 disproves that terribly!!