Posted on 10/12/2004 5:38:20 AM PDT by Clive
The 2004 presidential election in America brings to mind urgently Robert Frost's poem, "The Road Not Taken."
Americans have a path to choose, and the presidential debates -- the final one is tomorow night -- have clearly set the candidates apart on the fundamental issue of freedom defining America's place in history.
This is not the first time Americans have been confronted so starkly on how to remain true to their founding ideal -- evoked by Abraham Lincoln, even as the tragedy of the Civil War took an increasing toll of lives, as "a new nation, conceived in liberty."
This sets America apart from all other nations. Dilute this principle, or take it away, and America becomes no different from all the other countries securing their tribal or collectivist identities against each other.
Between the old world and the new, between Europe and America, the concept of freedom separates the two continents and their respective histories. World-weary cynics in Europe, and their progeny in North America, see in the American ideal only a reflection of themselves, the pursuit of power disguised as freedom.
Yet in American elections of 1860, 1864, 1916, 1940, 1944, and every election between 1948 and 1988 preceding the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, this ideal was at stake.
In the 2004 election, it is under siege both from within America and from outside, and in a more sinister form than in any previous situation.
The attacks of 9/11 were a test for the present generation of Americans and how, in taking the war to the enemy, they might also expand freedom's frontiers as Americans of earlier generations did in 1865, 1918 and 1945.
George Bush responded to 9/11 in keeping faith with American history. In taking the war to Islamist terrorists, the Bush administration liberated over 24 million Afghans from the Taliban regime's medieval barbarism, and 27 million Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's tyranny.
It is now for Afhgans and Iraqis to take responsibility of their freedom, and for others in similar situations to take courage.
The danger of unilateralism
In this war against terror the more formidable opponents of Bush are not the tyrants who were deposed, but those who charge American unilateralism is a greater danger to world peace.
John Kerry insists America must meet "the global test" before it ever again engages militarily abroad. He has said much more -- his politics shaped by the question he posed after serving in Vietnam, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- in repudiating the war in Iraq, indicating he will submit more readily than Bush to the requirements of the United Nations.
The post-Vietnam Democrats, and Kerry is most representative of them, became isolationists and defeatists. Their record is a long slide downward in appeasing that phalanx of international forces which seeks to constrain America through multilateralism.
At the head of this phalanx is old Europe and France's Jacques Chirac.
This is a Europe that never liberated a single individual from tyranny, nor was ever repulsed from engaging with a tyrant or appeasing fascism. It has been the breeding ground of organized murder, from France's revolutionary terror to communism, nazism and ethno-nationalism.
Then there is the United Nations. It was a product of American idealism after its predecessor, the League of Nations, had succumbed to the cynicism of old Europe.
But the UN banner of peace and freedom became the emperor's gown for tyrants, thieves and murderers posing as heads of states and governments. Their collective pronouncements make for prisoner's gruel fed to the hapless, as we have seen in Darfur.
Which of the two roads Americans choose, as in Frost's poem, will test their republic's founding principle and the future of freedom in a world where tribalism is instinctive and on the march.
Mansur is a professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario
-
Another great article from Mr. Mansour. He loves this country more than many of us do, it seems. Hey Mr. Mansour: If you ever thought of becoming an American citizen yourself, I'll sponsor you.
I am totally flabbergasted to see such a truthful and positive pro-American article printed in a Canadian newspaper ... in this case the "Toronto Sun".
Thank Mr. Mansour for your courage and perspective, given the spineless and socialistic tendencies in your country.
I second "LaFroste's" offer...If you ever thought of becoming an American citizen yourself, I'll sponsor you.
Cheers!
Fixie,
Boston, MA
I have three words to Professor Mansur: Go to Hell.
Hey "sport", what's your beef? This is a good article.
No way we need him up here.
Why? Do you only read the negative press and ignore the positive press from Canadian journalists? i.e. Steyen, Frum Worthington, Warren whom are all posted on these threads?
He's correct. Many who hold this opinion honestly think that a status quo in which only 3000 Americans die once in awhile is safer than having the United States strike back without their permission. My question is: safer, to whom?
BTTT
I don't know . It was early in the morning and I saw "Professor Mansur". I saw "John Kerry" and from that point on I did not read what was wrote.
I thought Frence, I thought Canadain both of whom have been giving President Bush grief.
Thanks for responding. Because of your response I went back and read the article. It was a good article.
I am just gun shy I guess. I get tired of the socialists and liars ,democrats by another name, attacking and lying about President Bush each day.
Understood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.