Posted on 01/21/2005 4:19:45 AM PST by Mikmur
PEGGY NOONAN
Way Too Much God Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars. A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty.
The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."
And yet such promising moments were followed by this, the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
And then there is the reality of the vision laid out by President Bush (I presume he continued the same theme yesterday although I have not heard nor read the text of the speech). Strengthen our security at home while doing what we can, diplomatically, economically, and militarily when necessary, to reduce despotism abroad.
You can tighten border security all you want. Someone will get through. The only real security is to get rid of the people who want to get through.
Shalom.
My point, exactly.
By the way, how long do timid empires last?
The culture in question has to be seriously broken - literally and figuratively - before it can be put together again in a "democratic shape."
That's why analogies to post WW II Japan and Germany are meaningless here. We firebombed Germany (including many attacks on civilians.) We *nuked* Japan. Both countries were subject to intense military operations that involved elaborate psychological occupation techniques as well.
We also deliberately set out to change some of the religious beliefs in those countries. In Germany the "Nazi churches" were disbanded. In Japan we forced the emperor to concede in the new constitution that he was no longer a god (although that had been an unbroken Japanese religious belief for several thousand years.) (Can you imagine us forcing militant Islamic terrorists to deny the interpretation of their religion that permits them to wage jihad?)
Further, we did these things in an era when our country believed in the *cultural superiority* of the "American way." But is this really what we want, or are capable of carrying out now?
BTW, I'll be a big enough man to congratulate you on the high-jacking of the Republican party.
I still have hope that the American people will wake up to the radicalism of Bread, circuses, tent revivals, and flag draped coffins.
Ok Andy, let me try to explain it to you. During first half of the 20th Century US foreign policy was focused on security of the US. The last half of the 20th century foreign policy focused on spreading democracy, defeating communism. Bush has married the two policies. US security DEPENDS on spreading freedom. Get it?
Experience with Japan indicates that even nations noted for their religious zeal can grow into democracies.
Japanese are an ancient, civilized--and homogeneous--people
Is the US homogeneous?
Those that go for the "BRONZE" end up with nothing!
"BTW--Ireland is a fully functioning democracy."
---
Ok..so you are saying that they have no brain unless they were raised in a Democracy or they had it beat into them through slavery..I see. I still get the same impression..you think they are subhuman.
LOL!
"James Baker was in trench coat and throat scarf" -- and I'll bet it was a dapper scarf!
Such unabashed bigotry is refreshing.
Wait a minute. No, it's not.
Perhaps you'll like my characterization better .. it's like giving a Swiss watch to a Ubangi.
LOL! If it weren't for James Baker, G.W. would never have been elected after that 'Seven Weeks of Hell in Floriduh'!
I know I wrote this before but I think it is a pertinent response. It is not our job to force anything on anyone, but it is our responsibility to share what we have both in our personal lives (which is why Americans are the most generous people ever) and in our political ones.
Indeed. What ever happened to the narrow "national interests" that were going to replace the Clinton/Gore "globalist aspirations"? Republicans today are becoming the mirror image of Wilsonian democrats, and those of us who dare to notice are chastised by the new global chest thumpers.
Hmmmm, you may have something there. She's not great with her liquor, I hear.
More practice may be needed. ;-)
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.