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
Most to be dreaded, but not always possible to avoid, as Jemmy had that pesky little matter with the British to deal with.
Madison was brilliant, yet he and the other Founders weren't perfect. Instituting an amendment process to the Constitution is evidence of their own realization that they were mere mortals who didn't possess a crystal ball to see into the future.
Dubya deserves censure on a number of things, (NCLB, prescription drugs, bailout #1) but in the WOT he took the fight to the enemy. An enemy that may very well acquire in the future the means to launch nukes or bio-weapons inside our borders.
I wonder if he were alive and POTUS on Sept 11, 2001 what Jemmy Madison would have done?
If you think that what is going on is really about "defending America" then you are more deluded than I thought. Because open borders, paying for other country's defense around the world while neglecting our own, destroying our economy, destroying our rights as citizens, supporting globalist financiers and bailing our Wall Street (which Bush began before Obama) ISN"T DEFENDING AMERICA -- it's selling her down the river for 10 pieces of silver! And anyone who thinks that they owe Bush "a thank you" for that isn't just a Republican -- they are an idiot!
My appologies. Not trying to agitate. True, I am not a Republican... not after McCain (dang, that reminds me, I still need to scrape that bumber sticker off) and pondering the legacy of Republicans as well as Democrats. Nay, I am an American. I am conservative. The smaller the government the better... all the better to keep tabs on them. I’ll take Palin in a heart beat. The two Bush’s I’d flush down the toilet in a heart beat... and that’s better than what I’d do if I was given the privelage of 5 seconds alone with Hussein, Reid, NaziPelosi, Gibbs, Soros, Clinton, ...
It’s mostly considered a Republican hang out, is it not?
Quoth a fella that wanted to sell a few books.
Pearl harbor was a sneak attack.
September 11, 2001 was a sneak attack.
What complete nonsense that you choose to ignore the parallels.
Only if Republicans and conservatives are one and the same.
No, the real idiots are those who parrot the liberal anti-war talking points and try to pass themselves off as conservative.
If you don’t think taking the fight back to the Jihadists over there isn’t defense of this nation, your worse than an idiot.
The comparison is that the Japanese were also suicidal. Two A-bombs brought that to a halt. Germany was close to having A-bombs.
If the economic power continues to flow out of this country at this rate, China won't continue to be the country making "the cheap plastic schlock" -- we will! I am not sure if you are old enough to recall -- but that stuff used to be "made in Japan" and look at Japan today. Fortunes shift and we aren't immune.
Who will the Russians and Saudis sell their oil and gas to?
The Russians and Saudis will continue to sell to Europe and already have more orders than they can handle from China.
And how will they “invade” the United States?
No one said that they'd need an Army
When our currency is virtually worthless and our housing market is dirt cheap, they just come over and buy everything that they can. Already, there are junkets coming over here from China to buy American real estate. This is the beginning. But unless we get this country back under control, it won't be the end of the Great American Fire Sale.
Post needs a barf alert.
Merry Christmas 385!
Good point.
At an individual level Bush seems like a great guy. At a presidential level he was the worst RINO in recent history. Despite rising government receipts, he blew up spending beyond belief. Remember, the wars were “off balance sheet” so don’t factor into the deficits. The “Patriot Act” is now being used by Dems to label conservatives as terrorists. The medicare expansion will cause untold billions in deficits in the coming years. His failed attempt to give legal residency to illegals is now being used by Dems to turn Texas blue.
Last but not least, he failed to catch bin Laden despite everything else. God bless his retirement, but he was a terrible president.
With our 2 party system, what choice did we have?
Bush, or Al Gore or John Kerry?
Bush was far from perfect and these ridiculosu open primaried gained us mcCain.
Ron Paul never stood a chance, not in 1988 nor in 2008. His message got out all too well.
Then again, the vitriolic nature of many of his cult followers turned a lot more pople off to him.
If you think destroying the GOP to the point that libertarians can easily take it over is the answer, prepare for decades of total Democrat rule.
As for Sarah, I’ll take her too and she is the reason I voted for McCain.
That and I feared Obama more.
McCain was the worst we could do, but he was still better than Obama is.
As far as conservative goes, anybody that I see repeating the junk posted over on Democratic Underground is no conservative in my book.
Good luck with Ron Paulies taking over Free Republic too.
You and most over on Democratic Underground are in agreement.
Wouldn’t you feel better where your more accepted?
That was one of my cherished political books from years past. I have no doubt that Bovard is “consistent.” Anyone thinking he’s a liberal is an idiot.
But I do think in the attempt to be “balanced,” that he, like a lot of libertarians, is harsher in degree for the sins of the right than the left. Not that Bush was much of a rightist, IMO, since LBJ or the like could have said what he did in relation to Islamic Terrorism.
And you think we are better off now?
Last I heard, Congress is who spends and Bush should have vetoed more.
Then again, he did get blind-sided with 911 and has history of reaching across the aisle, not that it did him any good.
All presidents make mistakes and yes, Bush made is share. But more than any other, he fought back when attacked, long over due.
Paul / Grayson ‘12
An idiot is someone who thinks that the jihadists and the war is only "over there" -- in spite of the fact that he is getting attacked on his own soil by his own adopted and native sons.
An idiot is someone who drops everything to chase a robber down the street while leaving his front & back door swinging open, assuming that there was only one robber.
There is much worse than an idiot.
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.