Posted on 12/24/2009 5:02:20 PM PST by rabscuttle385
George W. Bush is gone from Washington but his legacy, like an abandoned toxic waste dump, lingers on. Like President Franklin Roosevelt before him, President Bush helped redefine American freedom. And like Roosevelt's, Bush's changes were perversions of the clear vision the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.
What did freedom mean in the era of George Bush? In Iraq in September 2004, the U.S. military constructed Camp Liberty, a tent compound to house Iraqi detainees next to the Abu Ghraib prison. (The torture scandal and photos had been revealed in late April.) Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller declared that Camp Liberty and other changes in the treatment of Iraqi prisoners were "restoring the honor of America."
"Camp Liberty" was typical of the rhetorical strategy of the Bush administration: empty words in lieu of basic decency and honest dealing.
From the beginning, President Bush invoked freedom to sanctify his war on terrorism. In his Oval Office address on the night of September 11, 2001, Bush declared, "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." He pronounced authoritatively on the motives of the attackers even before the FBI and CIA knew their identities. He never offered evidence that that was al-Qaeda's prime motivation.
Bush rarely missed a chance to proclaim that the war on terrorism was being fought to save freedom -- either U.S. freedom, or world freedom, or the freedom of future generations. In 2002, he proclaimed, "We are resolved to rout out terror wherever it exists to save the world for freedom." He contrasted freedom and terror as if they were the two ends of a seesaw. Because terror is the enemy of government, government necessarily becomes the champion of freedom. But this simple dichotomy made sense only if terrorists were the sole threat to freedom.
Once Bush proclaimed that freedom was his goal, then all opponents automatically became enemies of freedom. In the first presidential candidates' debate with Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush explained away the fierce opposition to the U.S. military in Iraq: "They're fighting us because they're fighting freedom."
In 1776, "Let Freedom Ring" was a response to the ringing of the Liberty Bell after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In contrast, those attending the 2004 Republican National Convention waved signs proclaiming, "Let Freedom Reign." That was the phrase that Bush scrawled on a piece of paper in June 2004 when National Security Adviser Condi Rice informed him that sovereignty in Iraq had been transferred to Iyad Allawi, the former CIA operative Bush had chosen to head Iraq's government. Supposedly, it took only a mere signing of a piece of paper by the U.S. occupation authority for Iraqis to have sovereignty -- even though an American puppet remained at the head of the government, and even though U.S. military forces continued bombarding civilians in cities throughout the country.
Military power and freedom
For Bush, military power was practically freedom incarnate. He informed Congress in 2002 that the "Department of Defense has become the most powerful force for freedom the world has ever seen." In his 2002 State of the Union address, after bragging about victories in Afghanistan, he proclaimed, "We have shown freedom's power." In an April 2003 speech to workers at the Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio, he declared, "You build the weapons you build here because we love freedom in this country."
For Bush, the Pentagon budget was perhaps the clearest measure of America's devotion to freedom. At an April 9, 2002, Republican fundraiser in Connecticut, he bragged that "my defense budget is the largest increase in 20 years. You know, the price of freedom is high, but for me it's never too high because we fight for freedom." And if the government seized all of every citizen's paycheck -- instead of only 38 percent of it -- and used all the revenue to bankroll foreign military conquests, Americans would have absolute freedom.
Bush often spoke as if all he needed to do was pronounce the word "freedom" and all humanity was obliged to obey his commands. He declared in July 2003 that, because of U.S. military action in Iraq, people were "going to find out the word 'freedom' and 'America' are synonymous." Freedom, Iraqi-style, apparently meant giving the U.S. military the right to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and to obliterate the core of cities such as Fallujah. But the details of U.S. action in Iraq were irrelevant because of the transcendent goal Bush perennially proclaimed.
In his 2004 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Bush declared, "I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom." That was a formal renunciation of much of what America had once stood for. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, warned in 1795, "Of all enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other." But, from Bush's view, U.S. military aggression is as much a force for liberation as any political or religious ideology ever claimed in the past.
Limiting government power
Bush declared on the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that "there is a line in our time ... between the defenders of human liberty, and those who seek to master the minds and souls of others." But if the United States claims the right to attack the people of any foreign regime that refuses to swear allegiance to the latest U.S. definition of freedom or democracy, the world will see America as the aggressor shackling the minds and wills of people around the world.
The more nations that America attacks in the name of liberty, the more foreigners will perceive America as the greatest threat both to their peace and self-rule. Not surprisingly, Bush's policies resulted in a collapse in the world's respect for the United States.
In the 18th century, "The Restraint of Government is the True Liberty and Freedom of the People" was a common American saying.
But for President Bush, freedom had little or nothing to do with limits on government power. Bush told a high-school audience in 2002, "I will not let -- your Government's not going to let people destroy the freedoms that we love in America." In a 2003 speech at the Bonaparte Auditorium at FBI headquarters in Washington, Bush declared, "For years the freedom of our people were [sic] really never in doubt because no one ever thought that the terrorists or anybody could come and hurt America. But that changed." Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge reflected the attitude of the Bush administration when he announced, "Liberty is the most precious gift we offer our citizens." If freedom is a gift from the government to the people, then government can take freedom away at its pleasure.
Respect for individual rights is the bulwark of freedom. Bush proudly declared in 2003, "No president has ever done more for human rights than I have." But, in order to defeat terrorists, he claimed the right to destroy all rights by using the "enemy combatant" label. Justice Antonin Scalia rightly noted in 2004, "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive." But this was a luxury that American could no longer afford, at least according to the administration. The Bush administration fought tooth and nail to preserve the president's boundless power to strip people of all rights on the basis of his mere assertion. The administration continually dragged its feet with respect to obeying Supreme Court decisions that limited the president's power.
The Founding Fathers sought to protect freedom by creating a government of laws, not of men. But Bush freedom required the president to rise above federal law. The Justice Department advised the White House that the president's power to authorize torture was not constrained by the federal statute book because of "the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign against al-Qaeda and its allies." Justice Department memos from Bush's first term (released this past March) make it stark that the president's brain trust believed that the Constitution was as archaic and irrelevant as a covered wagon.
On the home front, Bush freedom meant "free speech zones" where demonstrators were quarantined to avoid tainting presidential photo opportunities. Bush freedom meant allowing the National Security Agency to vacuum up Americans' email without a warrant. Bush freedom meant entitling the Justice Department to round up the names of book buyers and library users under the USA PATRIOT Act.
Bush freedom was based on boundless trust in the righteousness of the rulers and all their actions. Bush offered Americans the same type of freedom that paternalist kings offered their subjects in distant eras. But Bush's supposedly lofty intentions were no substitute for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Freedom must not become simply another term for politicians to invoke to consecrate their power. Rather than stirring patriotic pride, Bush's invocations of freedom should have set off Americans' warning bells. It remains to be seen how much lasting damage he has done to Americans' vocabulary and political understanding.
Copyright © 2009 Future of Freedom Foundation
You are right on.
The Bushes (ALL OF THEM), Dana Perino, and Carl Rove should go get another line of work, stay of the GOP and national politics and keep their damn mouths shut.
The only person from his administration worth listening to is Dick Cheney.
I follow most of your post except this part. Could you explain further? This seems to imply that the growth was good, the burst was the isolated problem. You are saying immigration enforcement was why illegals stopped paying their subprime mortgages??
I follow most of your post except this part. Could you explain further? This seems to imply that the growth was good, the burst was the isolated problem. You are saying immigration enforcement was why illegals stopped paying their subprime mortgages??
I follow most of your post except this part. Could you explain further? This seems to imply that the growth was good, the burst was the isolated problem. You are saying immigration enforcement was why illegals stopped paying their subprime mortgages??
This one is interesting. Cheney for example is pure military, defense, + nation building couldnt care about social issues or too much government power.
But some others include the pro-life/anti-abortion/values issues with the flag waving Cheney beliefs.
Then there are big government social issues voters, they loved Bush too. These are the terry Chivo voters
The part of conservatism that is at odds with neo-cons is small government/more liberty voters. Many like Levin and Hannity mouth the words, but don't take issue with government power/national debt unless Democrats are in charge. Then its Stalinism
“I challenge death2tyrants or any other Bush-bot to find a broadcast by these 2004 Bush cheer-leaders with this warning.”
Has that been posted Yet???
Thanks for the laugh . There never was any. This is a big peeve I have with Levin, Hannity and even Rush. They are Republicans first (contrary to their claims) and simple message drive ..
Simple message #1 is Bush saved economy and created economic boom. Including increased tax revenues (all from the tax cuts, naturally, not from the new government jobs)’but those evil Dems and RINOs ruined it by spending all his new revenue
Simple message #2 is Barney Frank, Clinton and Carter killed the economic boom, at the same time it was being created. OH YES. Republicans (who happened to be in control of congress) warned minority democrats repeatedly that Subprimes would bring down the economy. How can listeners buy this stuff?
So many here buy this nonsense because talk radio promotes it. Unfortunately they never used message # 2 until after the final crash Fall 2008. As late as summer it was message #1
The Housing market could be described as complex. But it can really be boiled down to
- the supply and demand for housing;
- the supply and demand for money;
- the supply and demand for risk and saftey
- assumptions that the housing bubble was different from the tech stock bubble... or tulips.
My comments on immigration addressed mostly the and demand for housing, which was only a small part of the bigger complex situation. My point was that the housing bubble burst because the strong demand to buy housing suddently disappeared.
There is a normal demand for housing from newly married couples, and other non-immigrant sectors of the market. A segment of the demand that greatly increased the demand for housing was the FLIPPERS. One could see the DonaldTrump/RoberKiyosaki (sp?) seminars move from city to city accross the country. The number of flippers coming out of those seminars could be predicted, and was by the early flippers who preyed on the late flippers. Sort of like the multi-level marketing phenom.
But the increased demand from flippers was not real. it was all based on the expectation of increased demand from some other market sector.
Starting with the Reagan Amnesty in ‘87 and growing through the Clinton and early Dubya years was the increased demand for housing from immigrants (legal and illegal). That was the real increase in demand, not the artificial increase created by the flippers. It was the decline in the real demand from immigrants that popped the bubble.
Here I’m not describing the bubble as good or bad. It was a fact, a reality. I’m just describing what popped it.
It should be noted that a large percentage of immigrant home buyers are an extended family where multiple incomes are used to pay the mortgage and other expenses of the extended family. These immigrants are pro-family in the true sense of the word. Typically some members of the extended family were here legally while others were here illegally. The prospect that the legal immigrants would not have their illegal brother-in-law helping pay the mortgage caused the legal immigrants to hold back and not buy.
It should also be noted that immigrants (legal and illegal) have a much lower rate of foreclosure and problem mortgages. They pay their mortgages (at least in IL which is where I have my knowledge).
The foreclosure problem started as a problem of 3 groups, which often overlapped each other:
- flippers
- those with adjustable rate mortgages who expected to flip or refi.
- those with problems of divorce, separation, alcoholism, drug use, gambling and similar negative traits. Of course, it was the relaxed lending criteria imposed by CRA, Fannie/Freddie that drove lenders to lend to these people with problems.
- Once the housing bubble popped and the bailouts/stiulus sucked all the money out of the private sector and into T-Bills, then the recession became prolonged. Unemployment rose and unemployment is now a major factor in problem mortgages.
But even with unemployment related foreclosures, it can be show statistically that a high percentage of those first to be laid off are those with alcohol or similar problems that cause them to have a poor attendance record at work and be worthless as workers.
Here in MD there was massive legal immigration. Koreans the most but India, China, Bangladesh too. Howard County changed dramically in 10 years where open space land became closely packed homes schools crowded, roads jammed, taxes skyrocketed. About 10 years ago it was mostly white and conservative, but now it is democrat.
This is your proof that Coulter, Levin, Styen, and Limbaugh are for big government? An article that doesn’t even mention them? You, like your hero wRONg Paul. failed.
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.