President's thinking big for second term

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | January 21 2005

[knighthawk]

In President Bush's inauguration address, one certainly expected a reaffirmation of the United States' commitment to spreading democracy in the world -- to keeping it "on the march," as he put it during his re-election campaign. One expected him to continue to send a message of hope to people where tyranny rules. But the scope and ambition of Bush's freedom agenda proved to be oversized even by his standards.

Speaking in broad, expansive and idealistic terms, Bush wasn't there to lay out detailed policy for the months ahead. He will have his State of the Union speech to take care of that business. He wasn't there to offer reassurances that his policies in violence-torn Iraq would succeed, though they formed the subtext of his message. While he alluded to the millions of people who gained their freedom there following U.S. military action, he didn't mention that country or any other by name. When he promised the "force of human freedom" would bring about the fall of "ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder" and "the greatest achievements in the history of freedom" lie ahead, the world was his stage.

In declaring that the spread of democracy is directly related to our national security -- the more places freedom and the economic stability it encourages thrive, the less we will be threatened by terrorism -- he was not saying anything new. But standing outside the U.S. Capitol, he offered the most expansive and far-reaching vision of what's called the Bush Doctrine -- one whose bold idealism is scratched by a thorny complexity, what with such intense challenges as dealing with the nuclear threats posed by North Korea and Iran and the political and economic threat of burgeoning China. Is Bush really committing the United States to introducing freedom wherever it is denied? And will Americans have the patience, energy, fortitude and unity of purpose to see the nation and its allies paint such an enormous canvas with democratic values? As difficult as it has been for many of us to come to terms with the long-term demands of the war against terrorism, it may be even more difficult to cope with the long-term demands of exporting freedom to every corner of the globe.

When John Kennedy used not dissimilar rhetoric to call for a unified effort against communism, people were stirred by the cause of good against evil. These days, nations do not divide into opposing camps as cleanly. Some of our oldest allies now occupy a kind of gray area in supporting our democratic aims but opposing our methods of attaining them. Bush may have said in his speech that "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling," but there is a feeling abroad that America is determined to impose its agenda wherever it sees fit.

However his doctrine is received, Bush is genuinely and passionately committed to its tenets. The elections in Iraq and their aftermath may tell us something about the potential for making Bush's vision a reality in at least one country that long suffered under tyranny.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[GarySpFc]

I didn't hear the speech, but my search on the word "immigration" did not yield anything. Hopefully, W will forget his guest worker program. I must be dreaming.

[facedown]

W bump