Posted on 02/26/2005 11:16:52 AM PST by Ohioan
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at pages.prodigy.net ...
Exactly. Washington had no trouble with "expansionism" (i.e., trying to start a war with France at Ft. Necessity) but he was extremely pragmatic, and knew we didn't have the economy or the military to do much in 1796.
It has been a recognized principle of The Law Of Nations, for the past two hundred years, that nations do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of other independent nations. That is, indeed, one of the principal criteria by which you would identify an independent nation.
On the other hand, the idea of taking up the sword on behalf of a "creed" is not something Washington or the authors of the Declaration ever advocated; and the description of a "mission," in Mr. Bush's remarks, made people wonder if he was not becoming delusional. There is nothing to suggest anything of the sort in the Founding documents of America.
William Flax
It has been a recognized principle of The Law Of Nations, for the past two hundred years, that nations do not have the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of other independent nations. That is, indeed, one of the principal criteria by which you would identify an independent nation.
"The Law of Nations" doesn't protect unalienable rights.
There is no unalieneable right for a dictator or for a tyranical government to exist.
I would disagree with your conclusion. However, I am a bit at a loss to respond appropriately.
A debate does not necessarily end with a clear conclusion as to right or wrong. It often comes down to who had the better argument. In my opinion, that was General Washington, whom I also agree with.
Let me just suggest this. While President Bush did not define his terms, or use them in a consistent manner, nor offer much beyond assertions, those things would not necessarily mean that he was wrong--just not a good debater. Personally, for a great variety of reasons, many of which do not appear in the feature, I believe that he is wrong. But it is getting late in the afternoon, and I have done about as much typing as I want to do today. Another time, I will post a list of references to other facets of the argument.
William Flax
That is what a creed is. Somehow you are confusing religious creeds with creeds in general.
However, aside from nitpicking over one word, the substance of the assertion still stands.
Washington fought for the principles included in the Preamble, so I assume he agreed with them. Since he agreed with them, it is reasonable and logical to assume he would apply those same principles across the board, as extended to all men.
William Flax
In other pieces, I have accepted the premise that President Bush did what was right--given the information he had--in invading Iraq. I disagree with some of the decisions made since, but not the decision to invade. So we may be closer than you think.
Thank you. I appreciate the comments. It was my premise that you found the Flax submission to be interesting and wanted to expose others to his thoughts. I wasn't sure to what degree you agreed with him. Take care.
No, I do not think he wants a mobocracy, anywhere. But I do not think he understands how one man/one vote works out in lands where the average IQ is markedly lower than that in those countries where participatory Government works best.
As for your references to Monarchy. Frankly, I think that a strong, principled Monarchy would have a far better chance of doing good things in Iraq, than what we seem to have instituted there. Certainly, any Conservative American would long for a return to the days of the Shah in Iran.
William Flax
If it was not so late in the day, I would quolte Vattel to dispute that statement. However, I will limit this.
What you propose is tantamount to the sort of anarchy in international dealings that led to the Communist and Nazi abominations. You need to recognize that Bush is not a law unto himself. God has not ordained him to judge the rest of mankind. His "mission" and "calling," are not justified either in American theory, Western Theology, or the law of reason. It is the equivalent to "Lynch Law," instead of the normal workings of a Criminal Justice system; to the Nazi doctrine that the end justifies the means.
The Law of Nations--not the antics of the UN, but the 18th Century efforts to take some of the uncertainty out of our affairs--are intended to promote the safe and honorable dealings between peoples. Why can't you just live with that?
What you propose is tantamount to the sort of anarchy in international dealings that led to the Communist and Nazi abominations.
What?
It doesn't logically follow that because I don't believe in the unalienable right of a tyranical country to exist that I do believe in world anarchy.
I've not proposed anarchy of any sort. Your response has nothing to do with my comment. My commnet -- in bold -- still stands. Don't misrepresent it.
You make a mistake to suppose Washington, with the same diligent drafting assistance from Hamilton, would make the same speech today. He would not.
Washington nor Jefferson ever advocated isolationism.
By that, I take it to mean you do not believe Washington advocated building a high wall around the United States and thereafter cut off all contact with the outside world. Okay. I’ll agree.
Here you appear to link Washington and Jefferson, implying they held the same view on foreign affairs. They did not. They only agreed a foreign policy was unavoidable. They differed on what that foreign policy should be.
The debate is not between isolationism and non-isolationism; it is between maximizing our independence of action and allowing other interests to marginalize it. That is a very different thing.
Then a different President and a different speech should have been chosen.
Under the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy, America is free to pursue her interests and her people's interest in every corner of the earth. That is not the issue in this debate.
Between Washington and Bush there is no possible debate. Those speeches were given for entirely different historical reasons.
Harmless Teddy Bear in #18 comes closest to catching the historical context of Washington’s Farewell Address:
You also have to remember that we were just getting started. In Washington's opinion we were not ready to play with the big boys and likely would get creamed if we did. We were building something new and strange. Something that even we were not sure would work.
The speech needs to be read for what it is. Nothing more. Washington counseled the country to become first a nation of Americans. He carefully laid out what he believed was necessary for the people of 1796 to do to accomplish that coming together as Americans. The speech was not meant to be a checklist for us in 2005.
Washington believed in a strong central government and the doctrine of implied powers. He consistently chose Hamilton's interpretation of the Constitution over that of Jefferson and Madison. Reading Federalist #10 has nothing to do with Washington's views on the Constitution. What he did as President does.
As for your second paragraph, that is your opinion. It still does not change the fact that George Washington wasn't sure a republican form of government would work here, making many things of your article irrelevant.
What were the other 54 delegates to the ConstitutionalConvention doing while Madison was thinking up our Constitution? :-)
yeah but a foreign entanglement couldnt be on your ground in 7 hours like they can be these days back then....it took months to sail across an ocean....
Washington would react the same way (or at least a very simliar way) to the way GWB has. Not only that, but he would, assuming WW2 had happened, probably want to bring freedom and democracy to these other countries as well.
And who taught them how do it?
I wonder if Washington would have sold guns and whiskey to the Indians.
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.