Posted on 01/22/2005 6:14:11 PM PST by Destro
Bush strays far from Republican tradition
Friday, January 21, 2005
It wasn't a particularly lyrical speech that George W. Bush delivered yesterday at his second inauguration. It wasn't even a very Republican speech, for that matter. But it went a long way toward illuminating how far Bush has taken the Grand Old Party from its traditional conservative roots.
It was the most interventionist foreign policy speech heard in Washington in decades -- since John Kennedy's 1961 promise to "bear any burden" in defense of liberty around the globe. Bush's speech mechanics may indeed have been inspired in part by the success of the Kennedy speech and its focus on foreign policy in an equally dangerous time.
Domestic policy, as a result, got short shrift yesterday from Bush; presumably it will be dealt with in detail in next month's State of the Union message. So heavily tilted was the speech toward tyranny in the world that it seemed better aimed at a United Nations audience than an American inaugural celebration.
And therein lies a remarkable change for Republicanism. The GOP historically has been the party of restraint abroad, the heir to George Washington's admonition to avoid foreign entanglements. President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, had to overcome Republican resistance to American involvement in the First World War, and Franklin Roosevelt, another Democrat, encountered similar Republican hostility and suspicion as he tried to prepare the country for its inevitable involvement in World War II.
More recently, Republicans took Bill Clinton, another Democrat, to the woodshed for his involvement in ending ethnic cleansing by Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo and in nation-building in Somalia. Bush himself, lest we forget, won election in 2000 with a campaign that condemned Clinton's overseas adventure and promised to steer clear of "nation-building."
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
I think there is a shift from a cowboy point-of-view to a physician's point-of-view regarding foreign policy, and I think Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist(R) (who some say is a leading contender for the Republican Presidential nomination for 2008) who uses physician's metaphors often for public issues will be a beneficiary. For example, the old model was for the cowboy / sheriff to kill the bad guy and everybody was happy.
The physician, however, looks at the environment and sees that unless the swamp is drained, you can never kill enough bad guys to keep pace, although you have to do that too. When we say we have to spread freedom, we are essentially saying we have to drain the swamp of tyranny and replace it with freedom. It inherently is a much larger task, but hopefully it pays for itself with future prosperity and trade.
I think the idea for the Inaugural speech came from the book, "The Case for Democracy," but ultimately ends up at the same place. Sometimes a physician has to intervene, but generally he opts for the least intrusive method that will accomplish the purpose and quarantine the illness.
So for Farmer..the main concern is the cost of the ambitious international programs and their ultimate costs.
Doing nothing will cost much more.
The author sounds like a typical liberal.
George Bush says the oppressed peoples of the world should be free.
" God love him, we wish him well, but, how can we afford freedom ? "
If it means cutting welfare benefits for our base,and raising the debt, you're on your own, terrorized and imprisoned and starved citizens of the world.
Liberals are supposed to be for freedom and justice and liberty for all,
unless it happens under a Republican president.
The pubs like spending money more than the democrats. Hey, it's not their money that is being spent so who cares? We don't. We just keep reelecting them to congress.
"From what I remember, it seemed as if President Bush was planning on a foreign policy that was pretty much status quo prior to 9-11. So much for Plan A."
Good point, which Dems are trying to use against the President.
They ignore the parallel of President Lincoln. His reason for engaging the Civil War wasn't to abolish slavery, but that became his moral principle as he saw that the country couldn't return to the status quo after such momentous struggle and suffering.
So too now, where the President targeted Saddam's Iraq as a threat to our security, he's come to see that the resolution of the conflict calls us to an even higher purpose.
You mean like the president forgot to mention 9/11? - tongue-in-cheek
Almost all Republicans now days stray far from Republican tradition.
You mistake "isolationisim" with "anti-interventionisim"
Bush did not mention 9/11 in his speech either - question that?
And we are going to pay the doctor's bill how?
It means NO SUCH THING. Will Bush overthrow the dictator of Pakistan? Guess which side will win that Pakistani democratic elections?
Does Bush only want to export democracy and liberty when the results will yield pro-American results? That is not supporting democracy if we means test the results. It is a false assumption to equate a democracy with being pro-American. You can be a democracy and hate America just fine.
Bush is under obligation to defend the constitution and America - not democracy (The word "Democracy" cannot be found in the American Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, or the Constitutions of any of the States.)
Nowhere can the argument be supported that bringing democracy to lands and peoples hostile to America will make America more secure. In fact it can be argued bringing democracy to some people will create more instability and hostility to America.
I am sure democracy was good for once autocratic France - eventually - after the guillotine's "reign of terror" and the bloody Napoleonic wars ended.
I don't understand why people simplistically believe the demagogic claims that democracy somehow brings peace (tell that to the Athenians who voted for war and often) and stability.
I am enjoying the give and take discussions on this subject.
Last Sunday Frist was asked about Social Security reform and he said if you knew eventually you were going to have to have a heart transplant, far better to pay for some drugs (private accounts) and change behavior (reduce benefits for younger Americans) now and avoid that altogether. Regarding Iraq, he said we have to see it through or the cost will become much greater when the disease spreads. It will cost one way or the other, but less if we address the problems upfront. I'm trying to gauge how far the physician analogy will hold, especially since he is such an important player and was very successful in winning the mid-term elections and passing Bush's agenda. I think the goal is to have healthy trading partners and have lower medical bills (military spending dividend).
Having discussions on it and thinking it over can't hurt.
No..go back further
Only Nixon could go to China.
Well said.
So when is John Farmer going to appear on the Today show?
Certainly. Bush used a lot of religious sentiment in the speech. Continuing the physician analogy mentioned earlier, Christ was considered as acting as a physician in the many cases of healing both physical and spiritual.
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.