Bush must embrace the values of open societies

The Daily Star ^ | Tuesday, February 01, 2005 | George Soros

[risk]

Print
Copyright (c) 2005 The Daily Star
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Bush must embrace the values of open societies
By George Soros
President George W. Bush's second inaugural address set forth an ambitious vision of the role of the United States in advancing the cause of freedom worldwide, fueling worldwide speculation over the course of American foreign policy during the next four years. The ideas expressed in Bush's speech thus deserve serious consideration. "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture," Bush declared, "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." There was a bow to diplomacy in the assurance that fulfilling this mission "is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend our friends and ourselves by force of arms when necessary." Similarly, Bush recognized that outsiders couldn't force liberty on people. Instead, "Freedom by its nature must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities." Finally, there was acceptance of diversity, for "when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way." I agree with this goal, and have devoted the last 15 years of my life and several billion dollars of my fortune to attaining it. Yet I find myself in sharp disagreement with the Bush administration. It is not only that there is a large gap between official words and deeds; I find that the words sometimes directly contradict the deeds in a kind of Orwellian doublespeak. When Bush declared war on terror, he used that war to invade Iraq. When no connection with Al-Qaeda could be established and no weapons of mass destruction could be found, he declared that we invaded Iraq to introduce democracy. In Iraq and beyond, when Bush says that "freedom will prevail," many interpret him to mean that America will prevail. This impugned America's motives and deprived the U.S. of whatever moral authority the country once had to intervene in other countries' domestic affairs. If, for example, America offers support to Iranian students who are genuinely striving for greater freedom, they are now more likely to be endangered by American support, as the regime's hard-liners are strengthened. To explain what is wrong with the new Bush doctrine, I have to invoke the concept of open society. That is the concept that guides me in my efforts to foster freedom around the world. The work has been carried out through foundations operating on the ground and led by citizens who understand the limits of the possible in their countries. Occasionally, when a repressive regime expels our foundation, the Open Society Institute, as happened in Belarus and Uzbekistan, we operate from the outside. Paradoxically, the most successful open society in the world, the U.S., does not properly understand the first principles of an open society; indeed, its current leadership actively disavows them. The concept of open society is based on recognition that nobody possesses the ultimate truth, that one may be wrong. Yet being wrong is precisely the possibility that Bush refuses to acknowledge, and his denial appeals to a significant segment of the American public. An equally significant segment is appalled. This has left the U.S. not only deeply divided, but also at loggerheads with much of the rest of the world, which considers its policies high-handed and arbitrary. Bush regards his reelection as an endorsement of his policies, and feels reinforced in his distorted view of the world. The "accountability moment" has passed, he claims, and he is ready to confront tyranny throughout the world according to his own lights. But the critical process that is at the core of an open society - which the U.S. abandoned for 18 months after Sept. 11, 2001 - cannot be forsaken. That absence of self-criticism is what led America into the Iraq quagmire. A better understanding of the concept of open society requires that promoting freedom and democracy and promoting American values and interests be distinguished. If it is freedom and democracy that are wanted, they can be fostered only by strengthening international law and international institutions. Bush is right to assert that repressive regimes can no longer hide behind a cloak of sovereignty: what goes on inside tyrannies and failed states is of vital interest to the rest of the world. But intervention in other states' internal affairs must be legitimate, which requires clearly established rules. As the dominant power in the world, the U.S. has a unique responsibility to provide leadership in international cooperation. It cannot do whatever it wants, as the Iraqi debacle has demonstrated; but, at the same time, nothing much can be achieved in the way of international cooperation without U.S. leadership, or at least active participation. Only by taking these lessons to heart can progress be made toward the lofty goals that Bush announced. George Soros is president of Soros Fund Management and chairman of the Open Society Institute. This commentary is published in cooperation with Project Syndicate.
Copyright (c) 2005 The Daily Star

[risk]

The following quote will be widely misunderstood and misrepresented:

The concept of open society is based on recognition that nobody possesses the ultimate truth, that one may be wrong.

The important thing to consider is that while absolute truth is elusive, free peoples must attempt with all their might to grasp it, and act on the courage of their convictions. This is surely the case with respect to the security and economic vitality of western civilization. Even Soros admits that America is the most successful open society. How can the most open society survive if it may not make harsh conclusions about its own security when very real evidence suggests that to be the case?

Soros is making a sophist's argument: the truth is hard to know, therefore we cannot ordinarily act in contradiction to external views.

Soros is not saying that absolute truth does not exist. What he is saying is that because it is impossible to know for sure, we may not act on our best understanding of it when this collides with others.

This is foolish if our knowledge of truth is held in good faith, and if there are clear arguments in favor of acting on that understanding. Using the standard Soros tries to set here, we could never act in our defense unless there were a direct attack.

Is it moral equivocation to argue that truth is difficult to grasp? No. Is it moral equivocation to say that the nation that has defended western liberties so selflessly for more than 100 years may not hold its own security and the security of its allies to the highest of self-defined standards?

Absolutely. Soros is an absolute relativist. But his ideas are widely held. We must answer them.

NOTE: article pointer courtesey LGF

[goldstategop]

A billionaire socialist wing-nut.

Denny Crane: "I want two things. First God and then Fox News."

[risk]

ping: ...and if there are clear arguments in favor of acting on that understanding, then we may not simply refuse to act -- to finish my incomplete sentence, speaking of acting!

Not to act is to make a definite choice. Not to act is an action without a doubt. In the case of our security, the entire west's is at stake.

[ultima ratio]

It's interesting that in World War II Churchill's political enemies, the same appeasers who couldn't say no to Hitler, would not let up their criticisms, calling for a vote of confidence to bring him down--in the middle of the war, right after some initial defeats in North Africa. They blamed Churchill personally for the early military disasters of that campaign, though they were attributable primarily to a shortage of equipment and tanks. In much the same way the Democratic opposition continues, in the midst of the war in Iraq, to snipe at Bush, blaming every set-back on him personally, calling him a liar and worse.

Interestingly, after the defeat of Rommel, Churchill became a hero to his nation again--much as Bush became a hero again yesterday. The President, I would be willing to bet, relishes the election in Iraq as a vindication much as Churchill must have done. And I would be willing to bet that he has had this all figured-out politically for quite a while now, even preparing the public psychologically a few weeks ago by centering his inaugural address on the powerful theme of freedom--in obvious anticipation of the Iraqi election.

In fact both Bush and Tony Blair are as visionary and as committed to the spread of democracy as FDR and Churchill had been when both dreamed up the Atlantic Charter back in 1941. In it both countries declared to the world that all people everywhere had the right to choose the form of government under which they would live. Like Bush and Blair, FDR and Churchill also believed that the solution to the problem that their enemies posed after the end of the war was to convert them to democracies. Both leaders felt that by democratizing the world, they would guarantee the safety of their own homelands.

Bush and Blair are repeating this same promise in almost the same exact terms as their predecessors. This explains the raw clarity of the Inaugural Address which to students of history sounded very much like something FDR or Churchill might have said. In fact the comparison between then and now is really unavoidable and amazing. And it's causing the democratic opposition to look ridiculous, making Kennedy and Kerry sound more and more like carping European appeasers of the past and present.

[MadIvan]

The concept of open society is based on recognition that nobody possesses the ultimate truth, that one may be wrong.

Soros believes that this concept is an ultimate truth. Therefore his gripe is not that Bush believes he is in possesion "ultimate truth", just that his "ultimate truth" does not match that of George Soros. Soros has used his financial power to shove his "ultimate truth" down the throats of others...some avatar of toleration he is.

Regards, Ivan

[risk]

There are striking similarities, aren't there? It seems that appeasers show up in every generation -- always with the best of advertised intentions.

[risk]

I think our founding fathers agreed that truth is difficult to know. But they would not ever shirk from attempting to grasp it, nor would they back away from an obligation to convince each other of their understanding of truth, once it was solid. Only a sophist would say that clear and present strategic danger must be endlessly mulled over like a question of quantum mechanics or post-structural philosophy, even asking for permission to take any actions at all.

Soros is a sophist with an ax to grind. What if he persuades the majority of Americans to doubt their obligation to defend civilization? What does he gain in the process?

[coconutt2000]

Simple translation is Soros is saying, "nobody is right."

What Soros is implying is that even though nobody is right, you must try and treat everyone as if they are right and ignore the contradictions.

[Caipirabob]

Bush must embrace the values of open societies.

Isn't the concept of "values of open societies" sort of an oxymoron? I mean, if all the collective values of open society contradict themselves and they must all be embraced and respected, don't they cancel themselves out? I'm confused, but I'm quite sure in this case it's the author's fault.

In fact, it's the adherence to specific cultural values that makes a society cohesive and strong. It allows the people to stand together on common ground and endure the difficulties that life inevitably delivers.

But an open society? Someone explain, how do you respect and embrace both a culture of life and a culture of death? How can you embrace contradiction and promote a system of values?

You can not sustain a society on "open values" any more than you can build a house on sand. There is no foundation upon which to build a society with "open values".

The author may as well write an article suggesting we all abort ourselves. I think George Soros would be just as pleased with that as with anything else. I suspect more than anything it is his intent behind promoting such idiocy.

[Jim Noble]

The concept of this society is that there are truths which are self-evident and that they are endowments from our Creator.

If we reject our founding, self-evident truths, we are going to be destroyed as a nation.

[tkathy]

"The concept of open society is based on recognition that nobody possesses the ultimate truth, that one may be wrong."

The pompous arrogant Soros must be prepared to face the fact that he may be the one who is wrong.

[risk]

Nicely put. I don't think he's saying that nobody is right. He's saying that since nobody can know for sure what is right, where there's a difference, we can't trust Bush or America to make the right decision. But this translates to the same thing. Soros wants an international body to be established with authority over America. And he wants to convince Americans that their constitution isn't adequate, their morals are not sufficient, and their grasp of the international order is too coarse to be trusted.

In other words, he's asking us to unlock our own gates to the plundering hordes.

[risk]

The answer is: to have an open society, you must be willing to crush those who threaten its existence. You must be willing to close your gates to the hordes. Otherwise they will enter, trample the churches, the schools, the arts, and liberty itself, and then do away with the openness that produced the glory they sought to possess altogether.

[goldstategop]

The Left hates America to the point they don't even revere American symbols of national sovereignty. During the counter-inaugural protest on Jan. 20th, what was telling was the absence of a single American flag among the anti-Bush demonstrators. They claim to love this country but its belied by their conduct.

Denny Crane: "I want two things. First God and then Fox News."

[driftless]

Soro's and other leftist kooks remarks about how no one can know the truth are absurd on the face of it, because they themselves have definite ideas about good and evil. And for them, Bush and conservatives are evil, and wacky radical leftists like themselves are good. If no one could know the truth, then they would not be doing and saying all the deranged anti-Bush things they've been doing and saying since he was elected, because they would not care. Using their logic, how could Bush be doing evil, after all, if no one could know what's right or wrong?

[risk]

The concept of this society is that there are truths which are self-evident and that they are endowments from our Creator.

Yes.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

The socialists in America and the worldwide left in general are violently opposing the war in Iraq, the Iraqi elections and the entire Bush doctrine of spreading liberty and democracy in the Middle East because whenever nations and peoples shed the enslavement of tyrannies and dictatorships and become free, worldwide socialism takes a huge hit and is set back for possibly decades.

I believe that it is really as simple as that. As far as the left is concerned, Sadam Hussein was a perfectly acceptable socialist dictator, with even the ability to put his enemies through wood chippers, something that most Marxists everywhere can only fantasize about. The important thing though, is that the socialist Hussein was killing two birds with one stone: keeping his people enslaved and terrorized, and lining the palms of other elitist socialist leaders with dirty oil-for-food program money.

With the war and the elections and the imprisonment of Hussein, the socialists of the United Nations see their lovely little arrangement vaporized. Not only is the horrific prospect of millions of people suddenly becoming free staring them in the face, but the billions of dollars they made from the suffering and death of women and children are gone.

What a crappy situation they find themselves in and they just cannot keep quiet about it.

[Jazzman1]

As a billionaire why doesnt this POS practice what he preaches and give away his 'capitalist fortune'? Hmmm?

[MadIvan]

There are certain, undeniable truths in this world, which the likes of Soros will do anything to avoid:

1. Evil exists in the world. Soros would have us believe evil is only "misunderstood good".
2. You do not parlay with evil, you destroy it. Soros would have us negotiate endlessly before lifting a finger.
3. Weakness is fatal in dealing with evil. Soros regards weakness as a virtue...lest we make anyone angry.

There is a caveat to this. Soros will regard as evil anyone who dares to actively contradict him, and work ruthlessly to destroy whoever it is. A more despicable set of beliefs is difficult to fathom.

Regards, Ivan

[Jim Noble]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

This was, and remains, the most revolutionary idea in the political realm ever written down.

That America has lived it out has made her great.

But the loss of our organizing principle may prove fatal. It must be defended.