[Ohioan]

We realize that many at Free Republic applauded the President's Inaugural Address, five weeks ago. Obviously, we did not.

Still, it is our hope that this--which is the March Feature at my Conservative Resource Center--will stimulate analysis of where we are going, and whether we should in fact be going in that direction.

The President's remarks appear in full in the feature, General & President George Washington's are abbreviated from his Farewell Address, but appear in sufficient detail to make this a real debate, with the issues clearly joined.

Check it out. Even the present President's most enthusiastic fans may find it of interest.

William Flax, February 26, 2005

[MikefromOhio]

George Washington is the greatest leader our country has known. However, he didn't know about international air travel and airplanes big enough to destroy entire buildings.

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?

FLying internationally costs a bit over $1,500 these days. It's cheap and relatively easy to get to places. The moral is, we have to get the terrorists before they get us, again. President Bush has shown quite an insight (IMO) on this issue. Not only is he knocking the terrorists back a notch or seven, he has brought free (or freer at any rate) elections to two countries (Iraq and Afghan), has stirred the Lebanese people into kicking the Syrians out and now there seems to be some election reforms in Egypt for an as yet to be determined outcome to their elections.

It's going well. I think the American Republic has been served and defended faithfully by President Bush.

[lepton]

You know...I wonder if the one who compiled this actually read Washington's words while they put them together here.

This quite aside from the non-sequitor between the question, "Should The United States Promote Democracy In Every Land?" and what the implication the writer clearly is arguing against is.

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

[Matchett-PI]

From my personal "quotes" archives:

Most heard quote: "Nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests." (America's number one permanent interest is the security of its people.)

Quote: "Alliances reflect specific circumstances, and when these circumstances change, the shared practical interests that are vital to the health and life span of alliances begin to erode. As the 19th century British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston put it, "There are no permanent allies ... only permanent interests." ~ Rajan Menon

So who said it first --- Lord Palmerston or George Washington?:

Quote: "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." ~ Speech, Hansard, 1 March, 1848, col. 122. Lord Palmerston (Henry John Temple, Lord Viscount Palmerston), British politician, Prime Minister 1855-8, 1859-65. Partington, A. ed. 1992, _The Oxford dictionary opf quotations 4th edn., Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Quote: "In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington noted that there are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests. The speech has often been used to justify an isolationist foreign policy. But in fact, Washington advised the nation to get involved in foreign affairs only when it is in this nation's interests to do so, while expecting the same from other nations. The original George W. didn't have a U.N. to proclaim irrelevant, so he simply said, 'The period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance . . . when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.'" ~ [as quoted by Brendan Miniter]

*

From my personal Charles Krauthammer archives:

Democratic Realism - An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World
By Charles Krauthammer @ AEI Annual Dinner (Washington)
Publication Date: February 10, 2004 -- Posted: Thursday, February 12, 2004
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19912,filter./news_detail.asp

The article he wrote previous to the above speech:
"A Farewell to Allies" - Krauthammer 01/11/2004
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,570738,00.html

bttt

[In veno, veritas]

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

[FreeReign]

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

I can't find it -- can you?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[Age of Reason]

Oh, man. The thing's unreadable.

I was hoping to see Bush says a few words, then Washington respond, and then Bush speaks again, etc.

That would have been engaging, and caused me stick with it.

But this is a bad format. I give up. I'm too busy.

And if I'm too busy, forget most of the rest of America, which has the attention span of a gnat.

[chudogg]

This is childish, and irrelevant without noting the context of the times. George Washington was speaking about the War between France and Britian, which was tearing apart the solidarity of Americans and creating a division between pro-French Republicans and Pro-British Federalists. It was ruining our trade and naval commerce and both nations were acting beligerent to the U.S. Washington was saying not to get involved.

The world and the country as progressed alot since then. But it is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson, shortly after this Inaugarual adress, was successful in building an international coalition to quell the Barbary Pirates (i.e. Islamic Terrorists) who were interupting American trade. I would say George W. Bush is merely carying on the tradition of our Founding Fathers.

[k2blader]

Nicely done.

[FatherofFive]

What would Washington have done if Cornwalis had M-1's and Apaches? Times are different. Washington would support Bush.

[Ohioan]

Bump