Posted on 01/21/2005 2:01:42 PM PST by ambrose
January 20, 2005, 2:15 p.m.
A Conservative President?
It amounted to a thoroughgoing exaltation of the state.
By Peter Robinson
Aw, gee. He's our guy, I like him, and his performance since 9/11 has proven brave, steadfast, and completely admirable. But this speech? It was well-written - in places actually beautiful - and well-delivered. (I dissent from Jonah Goldberg and others who fault Bush for his delivery on the ground that they're forgetting to multiply his score by the degree of difficulty. Just try standing outdoors, in freezing weather, using a sound system that echoes, and then delivering a speech to an audience that consists of more or less the entire planet. Denny Hastert couldn't even administer the oath of office to the vice president without misspeaking. Bush delivered his entire text without a flaw.) But the speech was in almost no way that of a conservative. To the contrary. It amounted to a thoroughgoing exaltation of the state.
Bush has just announced that we must remake the entire third world in order to feel safe in our own homes, and he has done so without sounding a single note of reluctance or hesitation. This overturns the nation's fundamental stance toward foreign policy since its inception. Washington warned of "foreign entanglements." The second President Adams asserted that "we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." During the Cold War, even Republican presidents made it clear that we played our large role upon the world stage only to defend ourselves and our allies, seeking to changed the world by our example rather than by force. Maybe I'm misreading Bush - I'm writing this based on my notes, and without having had time to study the text - but sheesh.
On domestic policy, a "broader definition of liberty?" Citing as useful precedents the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G. I. Bill? Compare what Bush said today with the inaugural address of Lyndon Baines Johnson and the first inaugural address of Ronald Reagan and you'll find that Bush sounds much, much more like LBJ. He as much as announced that from now on the GOP will be a party of big government. I can only hope that Chris Cox, Dana Rohrabacher, and other Republican members of Congress standing on the platform behind the president today were thinking to themselves, "Not so fast, buster." Bush may yet win critical conservative victories in this second term - notably by managing to enact private retirement accounts. But his "broader definition of liberty" makes me mighty nervous.
Tell me I'm wrong. Please.
"name the alternative..." update
Just read that Chinese hostages freed in Iraq... somebody has more pull with the terrorists than the USA.
That is not an alternative.
You advocate we call them out on a national stage. Great.
What then? There are practical obligations behind the President's strategy to follow to meet the objective. Yours is brash, I give you that, but if you wish it to be taken seriously you will have to define a practical strategy to encourage a solution to China and Russia, which is not the use of our military, that the President has not already taken. You will have to construct a way to guide the fall out to the end objective of peace.
You have not done that. Without a solid construct the words you suggest will do more harm than good.
Thanks! Makes sense.
"practical strategy..." is that what you call an endless line of wars against proxy states?
When David heard the challenge from Goliath, his first response was "who is this that challenges our faith?"
Its not a matter of brash, its a matter of having the faith that there is a God that cares about right and wrong and is strong enough to prevail.
It wasn't "practical" in a military or economic sense (Given the structure of trade at the time, it was economic suicide) for the founding fathers to call out the British Empire. However, convinced that they had been wronged, by taxation without representation, the founding fathers had the faith that God, not them, would right the wrong.
Fast forward to today and the spiritual decline in the USA is clear. With all the power we have today, we, as a majority, lack the faith in God to have right prevail over wrong.
Right v. Wrong, that should be the only consideration.
Was it wrong for Reagan to call the Soviets an evil empire?
Nonsense, our liberty depends solely on our ability and willingness to defend it.
I agree with Bush. In today's world, defending our own liberty depends more and more on supporting the success of liberty in other lands around the world.
Nonsense, Core American Value is that "freedom" from want and fear come from faith in God and one's own self. Bush indirectly states that a person's freedom from want and fear comes from the govt, not God and the individual's values.
I think you are reading things into Bush's speech that aren't there.
I read it as taking power OUT of the hands of Gov't, and giving it back to the individual.
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.