Posted on 01/20/2005 2:21:15 PM PST by Pokey78
WHAT WAS SO GREAT about President Bush's inaugural address? First, it was eloquent, noting that freedom lights "a fire in the minds of men" and represents both "the hunger in dark places [and] the longing of the soul." More important, the speech laid out an extraordinarily sweeping and ambitious foreign policy for the nation. In doing so, Bush broke down the barrier between the foreign policy idealists, of which he and President Reagan are the most notable, and the realists, who include his father and his father's two chief advisers on foreign affairs, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker.
The most significant statement in the speech was simple and not lyrical at all: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." That's quite a declaration, one likely to unnerve tyrants and autocrats and even a few allies around the world. But Bush wasn't kidding or just riffing.
What the president added to his crusade for democracy made the policy all the more important. Bush said the creation of more democracies would have the effect making the United States more secure. Indeed, the need to seed freedom in as many countries as possible "is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time." In the same vein, he said: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other
Nor did Bush flatly insist he'd smashed the barrier between the idealists--or moralists as they're often dubbed--and the realists. But he had. In fact, British prime minister Tony Blair has told him so. The idealists have as their ultimate goal in the world the spread of democracy. And Bush said he would wage a full-blown campaign for democracy, that now being "the policy." Democracy is a noble goal by itself, but the president said it carries the added value of making America more secure.
Security, of course, is the goal of the realists. They prefer democracies, but they're not adamant about it. If an autocratic country is friendly to the United States and opposes America's enemies, the realists are quite satisfied. Transforming such a country into a democracy would not be part of their foreign policy agenda. Think of Saudi Arabia in this regard, or Pakistan.
Bush rejects this thinking. The best way to achieve the realists' goal of maximum security for America, he believes, is for there to be more democracies in the world. In effect, Bush said the policy of idealists will lead to the goal of realists. "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one," he said. Boom! The wall between the two schools is gone, at least in the president's formulation.
This would be merely an intellectual breakthrough if Bush were, say, a political science professor at Rutgers. But because he's the leader of the world's only superpower, it's a major step in the right direction for the world. Now, he's got four years to pursue the policy into make the spread of freedom and democracy a reality.
ah, and God.
Ping to Fred's interpretation of the inaugural address.
I disagree.
He has joined the two concepts together. However, when you join something, you combine the elements.
This means he would not be as aggressive as somebody who was solely an idealist.
It does not follow then that he is 100% a realist just because he is not 100% an idealist.
He has not done anything about SA since the gain at the end of the day would not be worth the cost. Ditto with Pakistan, plus they are not quite the despotic regimes of Iran and Iraq.
Bush will spread freedom where it is needed most for the countries in question and our security and where it will have the greatest impact for influencing OTHER nations without our military intervention in those other nations.
This does not make him a realist.
The fact that he supports regime change at all requires that he be called at least part idealist.
This may interest you.
Even the best publication has typos and errors.
All you can do is do your best to minimize them.
He wrote that quickly!
We were at a noisy party and I didn't hear what FNC or any of the other commentators had to say about the Inaugural address. We all thought it was fantastic but I rather doubt it was well received by the MSM media.
I don't think they are at the present time, though some say they are. China is quite debatable.
However, if you look at the demographic data, most of China is still rather underdeveloped. I am hesitant to call them a superpower just because of Beijing.
I like Fred Barnes too.
In that context, bunkering up ain't no option any more. The fight must be proactive, and true conservatives of any stripe (except the most off-the-deep-end Libertarians) know it.
Lincoln's early speeches consistently celebrated LIBERTY and the LAW, as dual components of the nature of America. One could not survive without the other. Bush has made it somewhat more "Christian," juxtaposing liberty with compassion and tolerance---not in a PC sense, but in a Christian sense. It's quite brilliant.
I shouldn't have "quibbled". Upon reflection, I was being anal...
ya'll seen this? Good read!
When a couple more countries adopt democratic government selection, the Saudis will get a "Magna Carta" presented to them and they will be able to be the "monarchy" in a Brit style setting.
Shopping at Harrods, diddling little boys,drinking themselves stupid at every opportunity will still be available to the trackable "immediate" monarchy.
Fred Barnes (and GWB) ROCKS!
Thank you for the ping. Today has been *such* a great day! :-)
I agree....I really enjoy listening to and reading what Fred Barnes says.
I applaud the goal, but I worry about that line. It sounds utopian. As a Christian, I know such a thing won't happen until Christ returns. Perhaps I am reading too much into this.
I confess do like the idea of telling some of our "allies" to put up or shut up on human rights.
Well said!
Think of Ron Reagan and the Berlin Wall....raise your vision, I would not bet against GWB....the man is hitting his stride!
I agree. While words are meaningless without action to back them up, they DO mean things. G.W. isn't just instilling in the hearts of the oppressed across the sea that they can be Free. Powerful enough if that were all he were doing. He is also causing Americans to yearn for the ultimate expressions of Freedom within their own land.
Consider, has the conservative movement EVER been stronger in decades? Are we to think this coincidental? No. It is happening because G.W. has created an atmosphere where we feel free to debate and express. When released from constraint conservatives florish.
People will complain that his policies are not conservative enough. They miss the larger picture. G.W. has constructed policies that implement responsibility and individual liberty. Once these become wedded to our thought Americans become increasingly embolded to demand more liberties. Unions, Public Education, political parties, Judicial... This may not all happen under his watch but he has begun esstential movements that will continue its progress.
I am Thrilled at his emphasis on Liberty and I continually find similarity with Lincoln. I would move further. I would state any American Patriot, no, further, all human souls that pride their value should be thrilled that Liberty has been advanaced for all peoples.
Fred, Good job.
You cracked something vital I don't believe anyone else caught, though I'm still catching up on all today's events. Well done and magnificent piece!
OK, Allrighty then. That would make Bush preeminent over Lincoln in terms of greatness.
Lincoln was famous for how expedient he was, acknowledging that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel territories. Of course, that neglects the fact that he set the course of the nation towards abolition, knowing that once the Union won, slavery was over. Bush's approach has not been the easy path.
That expression, "no true conservative", reminds me of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
I agree with sealing our borders, AND spreading democracy. At the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
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.