George Washington Debates George W. Bush

Return Of The Gods Web Site ^ | February 26, 2005 | William Flax, As Moderator

[Ohioan]

George Washington Debates George W. Bush
"Should The United States Promote Democracy In Every Land?"

William Flax, Moderator

Moderator:

Welcome to our debate between the current President and the first President of the United States. The subject is, "Should The United States promote Democracy In Every Land?" George W. Bush speaks via his Second Inaugural Address, January 20, 2005. General George Washington speaks via his Farewell Address, September 17, 1796. Since Mr. Bush has proposed an increased involvement of the United States in the domestic affairs of other peoples, in variance to specific policies recommended by General Washington, he has the Affirmative, and will go first. Then General Washington will answer. After that President Bush will offer a summary, succeeded by General Washington's rebuttal.

You will note in the text, that President Bush's paragraphs have been numbered, General Washington's lettered. These designations are to facilitate the reader in following our comments and analysis of the quality of the two presentations, which will immediately follow the debate. Such designations did not appear in the original texts. Now, President George W. Bush.

[MikefromOhio]

yeah. World War II put an end to a lot of things. Had Washington been around to compare the type of destruction in his time to the amount in World War I or II, he would be astonished....and changed somewhat I would guess....

[cyncooper]

The subject is, "Should The United States promote Democracy In Every Land?"

Yes.

Note President Bush didn't say "force". George Washington would approve and do as much were he here today.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe the Flaxman has the right to propose this thought process. I have the right to be, not interested.

We were attacked. We responded with about the only response we could have, short of dredging up Jimmy Cater's fireside sweaterfest.

Unlike those who attacked us, we do bit attack innocents around the world, for no other benefit than instilling terror.

We have tried to weed out terrorist, and those who pronounced publicly that they would support them. We have taken action in Iraq that the United Nations was unwilling to sign onto for over a decade. Despite millions of deaths at the hand of Saddam Hussein, and the continued butchering of his own people, we were the only ones who would stand up for the right.

If one wanted to get picky, President Washington would have viewed France's involvement in our own revolution, unfavorably. Not many rules are universal. Admonitions are fine, but there are times when circumstances make adhering to them to be suicidal.

[Libertina]

I have not read the entire article, but I would suggest that on the point of continuing Washington's opinion that Europe is of little interest to us, that philosophy became obsolete the moment European countries had missiles and nuclear/atomic weapons that could take us out.

[Wiseghy]

I'm not sure that it is the advent of the airplane that is the primary difference in eras, as much as the introduction of well organized non-state terror, along with man-portable nuclear weapons.

These two developments have effectively destroyed the "walls" which for 5000 years have separated the blood thirsty barbarian hordes from civilization.

Once, the development of the chariot changed ancient warfare. They were a technological innovation that, for a time, tipped the balance in warfare. However, nuclear weapons today threaten more than just armies, they threaten any and all types of urban, civilized existence.
I think that Washington, if he were alive today, would follow a similar path as GWB in protecting our nation and world from this threat of unholy and deadly chaos.

[writer33]

:)

[newsgatherer]

But, I have to wonder. What if we had stayed out of world politics and associations after our own civil war? What if the only international contact we had was through commerace? What if we hadn't started this foreign aid stuff? Would we have still been attacked?

I don't know, and we will never know, but since we have sterred a course of intervention, it would be foolhardy to suggest that President Bush back off after we were attacked.

Jake

[unlearner]

Washington advocated political isolationism from other nations which were, at the time, headed in a different ideological direction from our country. This was specifically to avoid becoming entangled in the problems these nations would inevitably face.

He was not against foreign trade.

We also live in quite a different age compared to Washington. Oceans do not separate us from other parts of the world in the same way they did at the beginning. We also have to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the growing threat of Islamic militancy.

As a result, isolationist policies are unworkable today.

Further, the author pits Washington against Bush in a way that presumes the author understands the ideals of Washington perfectly, and all others are unqualified to have their own opinions.

The author speaks for Washington who is no longer able to interject to express the way he would have us conduct ourselves in this modern era.

The author's position on race leads me to believe he thinks federal intervention to end the abuses of slavery (based on race and kidnapping in many cases) was unwarranted. The author might be content to have allowed slavery to continue unchanged from these abuses. This position is not justifiable. Slavery certainly is contrary to the meaning of liberty, and this nation should have never allowed it to exist as a permanent, multi-generational institution. The civil war was a consequence of this error.

Let me add one final opinion about this article. Washington would probably take a different and more conservative approach compared to Bush. But I think he would have been much more concerned about the attacks on religious freedoms and the general moral decline of our nation than about our foreign relations policy. Foreign relations problems are symptomatic of these deeper problems.

He would probably connect our problem of "exporting jobs" to the cultural stupidity of allowing our nations' young men to pursue entertainment and self-gratification under the guidance of their peers when they should be learning skills and contributing to society under the guidance of their parents. He would be alarmed at the acceptance of abortion and sodomy as morally permissible.

The author might be technically correct on some points, but is not pragmatic in recognizing a fundamental problem with Washington's views. They are, unfortunately, not shared by most modern Americans. It would be untenable to implement Washington's politics without changing many hearts and minds in our land first.

If Washington were here today, he would probably be advocating revolution rather than reform. I wonder who would follow his lead.

[Ohioan]

In his time, leaving other countries alone and not going after them was one thing. I mean, what are they going to do? Sail across the Atlantic at an enormous cost?

I think that you have missed the issue of this debate. The issue was the proposal in his Inaugural address, by President Bush, that we seek to democratize the world. The point you make about air travel, etc., really does not have anything to do with the focus of the issue. Washington's policy certainly allowed for changed circumstances. Note, for example his paragraph "K" in his initial response to President Bush:

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments, on a respectable defense posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Thus, for example, we work with Pakistan against Al Quaida. We work with China against Al Quaida and their ally North Korea. We also keep suitable military establishments, for a "respectable defense posture." There is no argument on that. The argument is over the present President's passing judgment on other nations--abandoning our neutrality towards all non-enemies--to meddle in their domestic affairs. That is getting into the emotional issues which Washington warned against.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Since you were just agreeing with Mike, to whom I have just responded, probably no additional response is needed. However, I wonder if you even bothered to read General Washington's comments.

When you talk about the standards of a simpler past, you apparently choose to overlook the fact that the Washingtonian argument in the debate was a more complex one than was Mr. Bush's. Washington dealt with ageless truths of human nature, and the psychology involved when people play favorite nation games with our foreign policy. Your comment really makes me doubt that you even read what you are commenting on.

[Darkwolf377]

Boring insults don't get a response from me other than to tell you that your position looks exeedingly weak when all you can do is throw boring insults.

[Ohioan]

I believe that we did go after the "Barbary" pirates, but that was probably after Washington's Presidential Terms.

We clobbered them with one ship and a company of Marines, in Jefferson's first year in office. But what is the point? Neither Washington, nor his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, were pacifists! As Jefferson put it, when he was Washington's Secretary of State (I believe), we should "punish the first insult."

Of course the traditional Washington/Jefferson foreign policy would have had us going after Al Quaida--and with everything necessary. That is not the subject of our little debate, here.

Again, the only issue in this debate is the present President's call for a multi-generation American policy to "Democratize" the world, which is based upon many errors--some of which I have addressed in other essays at my web site--the one being addressed here, is that it involves playing favorites and dealing with the world as meddlers, rather than as respectful peoples, etc.. In this one facet of the debate, treated here, we have let General Washington--who spoke for an even handed policy better than anyone else, because he went into the common knowledge from all human experience, as to the psychological factors involved--carry the debate.

Read Washington's paragraphs A, B, C, D, L, etc., and you will understand what he was saying and what he was not saying.

[martian_22]

When reaching out and touching someone is only 22 minutes away, as the missle flies, I'd say we were already involved in foreign intrigues. No choice....

If you're going to spread anything in the world, freedom and democracy under law is pretty good compared to some of the stuff I've seen spread worldwide.

It's a world of competition in ideas as well as other more tangible things. America should compete, IMHO.

[self_evident]

What if the only international contact we had was through commerace?

Commerce needs to be defended. Something that should go without saying, since 9/11 was principally an attack on our commerce. Bin Laden stated as much.

[Ohioan]

Further, there is the matter of the current situation having a context.

Yes, indeed. And the result in the debate is that President Bush used his terms as platitudes, without substantiating his assertions with logical analysis, whereas General Washington explained his views of foreign policy with analysis of the psychological processes that have governed international dealings through all time.

There is no non-sequitur in the title of the debate. While most of Mr. Bush's speech was about "Freedom," etc., he did define his policy (paragraph 6), "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture."

I simply shortened the statement, in framing the debate.

[FreeReign]

President's call for a multi-generation American policy to "Democratize" the world, which is based upon many errors--some of which I have addressed in other essays at my web site--the one being addressed here, is that it involves playing favorites and dealing with the world as meddlers, rather than as respectful peoples...

There is no unalienable right for undemocratic governments not to have their affairs meddled with. That's an idea you don't agree with? Or do you misuse the word "meddle" which implies the interference of rights like liberals often do?

[Ohioan]

I would contend that Washington wasn't sure if democracy would work in THIS land. He called us the great experiment, after all.

The Founding Fathers did not give us a Democracy. They gave us a Federal Republic, with the power to protect the separate Republics (guarantee clause in the Constitution) in the several States. If you read the Federalist Paper #10, you will see that preventing a Democracy was one of Madison's purposes in drafting our Constitution. You will also see why.

Democracy works in Switzerland, and in New Hampshire town meetings; but in most places it rapidly degenerates into mob rule. It is not the ultimate achievement of the human experience! The efforts of the Left to convert our Republic into a Democracy, are behind most of the things we do not like in 20th Century America.

[Ohioan]

Where in George Washington's Farewell Address of September 17, 1796 does he address the defense of our country against WMD?

I have already quoted the part of the part of his farewell address, included in the debate, that is most relevant to your query (paragraph K). (There are many parts of the Farewell address that are not in the debate, incidentally.) But again, the subject of this debate is not our armaments. The subject is the announced Bush policy of promoting Democracy in every land.

[FreeReign]

Of course the traditional Washington/Jefferson foreign policy would have had us going after Al Quaida--and with everything necessary. That is not the subject of our little debate, here...

Our president advocates the spread of democracies around the world. He does so because he believes it is the best way to defend freedom in this country against world tyrants. He also believes it helps the people who live in those oppressed countries.

Not to complicated reall.

[Joe.E.Sixpack]

All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Let's assume that Washington took that creed at face value. Then we can also assume that Washington would have been in favor of promoting those rights across the globe comprised of "all men".