Skip to comments.
On Tyranny (The antidote to Peggy Noonan's WSJ bitchiness)
The Weekly Standard ^
| January 31, 2005
| William Kristol
Posted on 01/21/2005 8:07:40 PM PST by quidnunc
-snip-
Informed by Strauss and inspired by Paine, appealing to Lincoln and alluding to Truman, beginning with the Constitution and ending with the Declaration, with Biblical phrases echoing throughout George W. Bush's Second Inaugural was a powerful and subtle speech.
It will also prove to be a historic speech. Less than three and a half years after 9/11, Bush's Second Inaugural moves American foreign policy beyond the war on terror to the larger struggle against tyranny. It grounds Bush's foreign policy American foreign policy in American history and American principles. If actions follow words and success greets his efforts, then President Bush will have ushered in a new era in American foreign policy.
That era will of course build on the efforts and achievements of his predecessors especially Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. The invocation of Truman is clear. Here is Truman, in his address to a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947, announcing what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." And here is Bush: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: inauguraladdress; kristol; w2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
To: quidnunc
It grounds Bush's foreign policy American foreign policy in American history and American principles. If actions follow words and success greets his efforts, then President Bush will have ushered in a new era in American foreign policy. Well said. A very good analysis.
21
posted on
01/21/2005 9:12:09 PM PST
by
TheDon
(The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
To: TheDon
22
posted on
01/21/2005 9:24:06 PM PST
by
GVnana
(If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
To: goldstategop; quidnunc
The Wall Street Journal editorial opened with this:
If nothing else, President Bush's second inaugural address yesterday should put to rest the myth that the idealistic roots of his foreign policy aren't his own. The vast "neo-con" conspiracy would appear to start at the top.
(sign up free)
I'd call it antidote 2.
23
posted on
01/21/2005 9:42:09 PM PST
by
dervish
(Europe can go to Islam)
Bush has about 2 years to really kick some butt. I hope the Iranians listened closely.
After 2 years, the next presidential election will begin to bog Bush and the republican party down with political retoric, and no doubt our biased lefty media will be on full attack mode. Hopefully Bush will pass a law that puts some truth back into media before then.
To: quidnunc
What happens when this ideal clashes hopelessly with the policies and practices of the UN? Something, I hope.
To: quidnunc
"Here is Truman, in his address to a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947, announcing what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." The same who failed to cross the USSR/China Communists and offered "peaceful co-existence" and containment?
26
posted on
01/21/2005 10:40:23 PM PST
by
endthematrix
(Declare 2005 as the year the battle for freedom from tax slavery!)
To: Thorin
I'll take Peggy Noonan over Bill Kristol any day.
Not me. Not on this issue. Peggy came off sounding like a tired old jealous bore. It's obvious she thinks she could have done better. Huffing and persnickity like Arianna Huffington, but without the accent.
I always liked Peggy Noonan. Until now. She sounded very cheap, very small, and very dumb.
At first I was ashamed for her, then I thought, who cares. If huff'n'puff is what she wants to be, so be it.
To: samtheman
I'm with you on this one. I'll probly never bother to read Peggy Noonan's writing again. I thought about sending her an e-mail and explaining why she's lost a reader.. why ever would she want to poo on the President's parade?
Thank God for GWBush! She just made herself look small and petty.
28
posted on
01/22/2005 5:05:03 AM PST
by
GrannyAnnie
(as right as I can be)
To: quidnunc
Now when Kristol calls off his insurgent campaign against Rummy, he just might regain a speck of credibility!
To: goldstategop
Its those darned neocons again. Wait til Pat Buchanan and the paleos discover Bush's presidency has been hijacked a second time!
Neocons? I thought it was the
JOOOOOOOZZZ!!!!!!
Shhhhh. If you don't say anything about the hooked-nosed Jewish banker's conspiracy, then I won't. And for God's sake, don't let the cat out of the bag about the ritual sacrifices of Muslim babies.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
30
posted on
01/22/2005 6:03:53 AM PST
by
section9
(Major Motoko Kusanagi says, "Jesus is Coming. Everybody look busy...")
To: Thorin
Yes, I figured the reference was to Leo Strauss, who has a cult following, although I have never been able to figure out why.
To: quidnunc
Jim Robinson's Master List Of Articles To Be Excerpted
On Tyranny: George W. Bush's Second Inaugural was a powerful and subtle speech. It will also prove to be historic - William Kristol
A social science that cannot speak of tyranny with the same confidence with which medicine speaks, for example, of cancer, cannot understand social phenomena as what they are. --Leo Strauss, On Tyranny
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph. --Thomas Paine, The Crisis
Infomed by Strauss and inspired by Paine, appealing to Lincoln and alluding to Truman, beginning with the Constitution and ending with the Declaration, with Biblical phrases echoing throughout -- George W. Bush's Second Inaugural was a powerful and subtle speech.
It will also prove to be a historic speech. Less than three and a half years after 9/11, Bush's Second Inaugural moves American foreign policy beyond the war on terror to the larger struggle against tyranny. It grounds Bush's foreign policy -- American foreign policy -- in American history and American principles. If actions follow words and success greets his efforts, then President Bush will have ushered in a new era in American foreign policy.
That era will of course build on the efforts and achievements of his predecessors -- especially Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. The invocation of Truman is clear. Here is Truman, in his address to a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947, announcing what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." And here is Bush: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
Truman's basically defensive formulation of the doctrine of containment was appropriate at the beginning of the Cold War. Reagan was able, two decades later, to go further and to talk of transcending or overcoming communism. So we did, and Bush claims we are in a new and more hopeful era: "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." Our previous victories allow a more expansive embrace of America's "ultimate goal."
Expansive does not mean reckless. Bush avoids John Kennedy's impressive but overly grand, "pay any price, bear any burden" formulation. Bush states that military force will of course be used to "protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats," and that "we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary." But he explains that the task of ending tyranny around the world is not "primarily the task of arms." The goal of ending tyranny will be pursued through many avenues, and is the "work of generations."
And Bush makes careful distinctions among the nations of the world. There are democratic allies, to whom he reaches out for help. There are "governments with long habits of control" -- Russia, or China, or the Arab dictators -- whose leaders Bush urges to start on the "journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side." But he also makes clear to these leaders that we will pressure them and hold them accountable for oppression, and that we will support dissidents and democratic reformers in their countries.
Then there are the "outlaw regimes." It is their rulers who call to mind Lincoln's statement: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." So for those nations we intend to promote regime change -- primarily through peaceful means, but not ruling out military force in the case of threats to us. If the critics of the speech who have denounced it as simple-minded were to read it, they would find it sophisticated. They might even find it nuanced.
Still, sophisticated and nuanced as it is, it does proclaim the goal of ending tyranny. And just as Truman's speech shaped policy, so Bush's will. As he implicitly acknowledges, his presidency will be judged not by this speech but by his achievements. The speech, by laying out a clear and compelling path for U.S. foreign policy, will make substantial achievements easier. There will be vigorous debates over how to secure these achievements -- debates over defense spending and diplomacy, over particular tactics and operational choices. We will at times differ with the president on some of these matters, as we have at times in the past. But on the fundamental American goal, President Bush has it right -- profoundly right.
32
posted on
01/22/2005 12:30:28 PM PST
by
ConservativeStLouisGuy
(11th FReeper Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Unnecessarily Excerpt)
To: ConservativeStLouisGuy
Bush's second inaugural was a great speech. Of course, he could have given the "alternative" speech P. J. O'Rourke wrote for him and that would have been fine too. (It's in the latest issue of The Weekly Standard--I think it was posted on FR some days ago.)
To: quidnunc
Of course Kristol is going to say it was a great speech, he had a great deal of input.
34
posted on
01/23/2005 10:13:28 AM PST
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: Verginius Rufus
Hehehehe....yes, I DID read the "alternative address" by P.J. O'Rourke -- and I liked it for it's "no holds-barred" truthfulness too! :-)
35
posted on
01/25/2005 10:40:52 AM PST
by
ConservativeStLouisGuy
(11th FReeper Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Unnecessarily Excerpt)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-35 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson