The Inaugural Speech: A question of world influence.

[Alden]

I've just had a chance to read the inaugual address and I must say, I am somewhat concerned. Regardless of one's position on the Saddam and the Iraq war, I think that in Bush's speech, we see reason for concern. I discussed this with Patroclus yesterday, and I understand why he might feel along the same lines.

The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

Bush later goes on to say that this will not be achieved by relying solely upon military means. The concern that I think one might see is that we are going to become entangled everywhere. I am concerned by the implications this has for my country, my fellow citizens, and, especially as a young man of fighting age, myself. And I know, I know, there are some who have been saying this for some time. These are just my musings on the issue. Thoughts, anyone?


Below are some of the relevant excerpts. I have included links to the speech on CNN and MSNBC.

We have seen our vulnerability – and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny – prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder – violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.

Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom.

America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength – tested, but not weary – we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6848112/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ipt/index.html

[Sacrificial Ram]

I've just had a chance to read the inaugual address and I must say, I am somewhat concerned. Regardless of one's position on the Saddam and the Iraq war, I think that in Bush's speech, we see reason for concern. I discussed this with Patroclus yesterday, and I understand why he might feel along the same lines.



Bush later goes on to say that this will not be achieved by relying solely upon military means. The concern that I think one might see is that we are going to become entangled everywhere. I am concerned by the implications this has for my country, my fellow citizens, and, especially as a young man of fighting age, myself. And I know, I know, there are some who have been saying this for some time. These are just my musings on the issue. Thoughts, anyone?


Below are some of the relevant excerpts. I have included links to the speech on CNN and MSNBC.

We have seen our vulnerability – and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny – prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder – violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.

Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom.

America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength – tested, but not weary – we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6848112/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ipt/index.html

To me, it sounds like Nation building.. which he was very much against until he had the power.

If I was in a oil rich country, I would be even MORE concerned.

[Alden]

There is a poll on MSNBC asking if it was America's job to spread freedom around the world. At the time that I answered, with over 12,000 voting, the vote was 70% saying no. I am going to try to post the same question here.

msnbc's poll is at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/

[Alden]

To me, it sounds like Nation building.. which he was very much against until he had the power.

If I was in a oil rich country, I would be even MORE concerned.

I am interesting in hearing developed opinions and/or arguments in this thread. Please provide substance to your opinion, rather than assertions or soundbites.



Edit to Add: As thread starter, I request that a civil tone be maintained in this thread. If you want to rant that "Bush is the Devil!" or "W stole the election", do it elsewhere.

[guacamole]

I answered no.

Some people do not want to be free and are actually comforted by circumstances in which they have restricted choices.

I also know that "making people free" invariably includes enslaving them to the same economic forces that bind me to my desk in my cube, happy ruler of it though I may be. "Let's free the people of the middle east so that they can make the minimum monthly payment on their credit cards!" Nope, making people free means leading them to Jesus. Sorry. I know that sounds sappy. I pretty much don't care. Everything else is slavery.

That said I'm not to concerned. I don't pay attention to much of the jibber-jabber that comes out of the pie-holes of politicians. They usually don't change the status quo. I doubt that Bush is going to become some sort of 21st century Genghis Khan.

fwiw
guac.

[Epoetker]

Please. It's not like even free nations such as ours haven't been fighting wars since the beginning of time, for reasons much less mundane than national survival. When it becomes easier to deduce the cause of the failure of nations, it becomes simpler to

Some people do not want to be free and are actually comforted by circumstances in which they have restricted choices.

So give them a standard two-party electoral system then.

I also know that "making people free" invariably includes enslaving them to the same economic forces that bind me to my desk in my cube, happy ruler of it though I may be.

Neener, neener, I get to work in a noisy factory and youuu don't. That'll teach you guys to take all the white collar jobs from America. Who's suffering from cube boredom NOW!

"Let's free the people of the middle east so that they can make the minimum monthly payment on their credit cards!"

Believe me, if we could make them credit-WORTHY, that'd be a huge accomplishment.

Nope, making people free means leading them to Jesus.

True. But people get discomforted by that freedom too. And I'm pretty sure there's a scripture verse out there that says "Pray for peace that the gospel might be spread." It's really hard to share Jesus with people when they're constantly on the run, constantly fighting, mistrustful of all outsiders, and limited in their choices by whatever controlling legal authority is present. If there's no businesses in the area to work for, it's going to be kind of hard to live the quiet life working with your hands that Paul the Apostle talked about.

And as an advanced capitalist, I'd say your description of free economic activity is too narrow. Consider entrepreneurism, invention, or teaching, if only on the side.

[$cirisme]

I voted no for a couple reasons:

1) The only one with that responsibility is the church
2) It may be good policy for America to help spread freedom(and I believe it is) but it is not her responsibility. See #1.

[Lazy Agnostic]

...making people free means leading them to Jesus. Sorry. I know that sounds sappy.

No, it doesn't sound sappy, at all. It sounds downright scary.

There is no One Way which has a copyright on character and morality. Demagogic displays of public piety isn't one of them.

[geochron]

Does anyone believe his speech means the US is going to try to bring freedom to Tibet, China, Uzbekistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, for instance? Or even support people who do?

The world's cynics heard him define "spreading liberty" as "furthering the interests of the people who pull the strings in the USA". Calling it "spreading liberty" is for home consumption.

[Epoetker]

Does anyone believe his speech means the US is going to try to bring freedom to Tibet, China,

Those two would go hand in hand in any kind of liberation. Of course, the general canard throughout the 90s was 'leave China alone and eventually it'll get more democratic, though the success of that policy is doubtful. Ask Vorkosigan for more details.

Uzbekistan

Who's ruling the Uzbeks now? Russia? This seems to be more of the same-Russia's the bigger focus for democratic change.

Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, for instance?

I see. We'd be liberating them for whom now? A common population more into radical Islamism than their rulers? We're kinda doing this for people who'll actually appreciate it. Give liberty to a liberty-hating ideology? DOES NOT COMPUTE. Much of the Islamic world requires the destruction of their prevailing Islamist ideology before anything resembling liberty can take hold.

Or even support people who do?

Depends on the people. Now that the Cold War's over, we can afford to be picky. We're highly unlikely to support just any random mujahid who says he hated his oppressive government but dreams of an Islamic superstate. Unless the tyranny was directly threatening us. But generally we're going for movements with a future.

The world's cynics heard him define "spreading liberty" as "furthering the interests of the people who pull the strings in the USA".

We all pull strings to some extent in the USA. Beauty of a free democratic republic.

Calling it "spreading liberty" is for home consumption.

Of course it's for home consumption. He's OUR president, and doesn't need to cater to every foreigner who doesn't have time to learn the history behind his metaphors. That speech touched on every major American ideal and experience in the past 100 years from Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. Thus, it was far more easily understood by Us than by Them overseas. But you can always educate yourself a little more.

[geochron]

Those two would go hand in hand in any kind of liberation. Of course, the general canard throughout the 90s was 'leave China alone and eventually it'll get more democratic, though the success of that policy is doubtful. Ask Vorkosigan for more details.

So, no support for liberty in China, or for China-occupied Tibet. That's, what, a quarter of the world?

Who's ruling the Uzbeks now? Russia? This seems to be more of the same-Russia's the bigger focus for democratic change.

The president of Uzbekistan rules the Uzbeks, and there's precious little liberty. Any likely support for liberty there while he lets the US have their bases? Didn't think so. I bet the people won't be ready for liberty until the US can be sure they're prepared to allow the bases to remain.

I see. We'd be liberating them for whom now? A common population more into radical Islamism than their rulers? We're kinda doing this for people who'll actually appreciate it. Give liberty to a liberty-hating ideology? DOES NOT COMPUTE. Much of the Islamic world requires the destruction of their prevailing Islamist ideology before anything resembling liberty can take hold.

Depends on the people. Now that the Cold War's over, we can afford to be picky. We're highly unlikely to support just any random mujahid who says he hated his oppressive government but dreams of an Islamic superstate. Unless the tyranny was directly threatening us. But generally we're going for movements with a future.

Meanwhile US support for liberty involves supporting dictators. The people of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan must wait to choose their government until they're ready to choose what the US wants them to choose.

We all pull strings to some extent in the USA. Beauty of a free democratic republic.

I was just cutting some slack to the average US Joe rather than identifying them with the actions of their government.

Of course it's for home consumption. He's OUR president, and doesn't need to cater to every foreigner who doesn't have time to learn the history behind his metaphors. That speech touched on every major American ideal and experience in the past 100 years from Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. Thus, it was far more easily understood by Us than by Them overseas. But you can always educate yourself a little more.

Liberty in 20th century US metaphor and experience means "chosing what we want you to choose", as you've demonstrated. Foreigners might have made the mistake of confusing it with freedom. Silly them.

Maybe President Bush should found a "Ministry of Liberty" dedicated to making sure that the populations of other countries either acted as the US wanted or didn't get the chance to choose. It would have a suitably Orwellian ring, dontcha think?.

[Epoetker]

So, no support for liberty in China, or for China-occupied Tibet. That's, what, a quarter of the world?

You misunderstand. China has just looked into buying a bunch of TU-22 "Backfire" bombers from Russia. Supersonic bombers primarily designed to kill carrier fleets. What sort of engagement do you think they're planning? Should we accelerate that engagement now, or should we hope that democratic rule takes hold before they become a threat? I'm in favor of sending nukes to Taiwan and Japan NOW.

The president of Uzbekistan rules the Uzbeks, and there's precious little liberty. Any likely support for liberty there while he lets the US have their bases? Didn't think so. I bet the people won't be ready for liberty until the US can be sure they're prepared to allow the bases to remain.

So...what? Is this just a national soverignty thing or an Islamist thing? If the former, then yes, we might want to start looking into new bases. If the latter, it's not likely that removing them's going to cause any good liberty to spread. Any recent articles on the state of the Uzbeks?

Meanwhile US support for liberty involves supporting dictators. The people of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan must wait to choose their government until they're ready to choose what the US wants them to choose.

Musharraf was far more popular when he first fought his way into office. And given the Wahhabist ideology that dominates both countries, and the fact that Saudi Arabia breaking down would cause friggin' world economic chaos, your 'gotcha' posturing is getting really tiresome. I told you previously: We're not going to support popular Islamist movements under the rubric of 'spreading democracy.' Talk to an Iranian for how well those went.

I was just cutting some slack to the average US Joe rather than identifying them with the actions of their government.

Don't cut them any slack. The average US Joe generally voted for Bush, and their values are generally the type that would have them either with my position or to the right of it, if you had sufficient time to elucidate it to them. Understanding is not going to help the fact that most Americans hate whiners and people who demand immediate ideological perfection NOW while doing nothing to improve the situation.

Liberty in 20th century US metaphor and experience means "chosing what we want you to choose", as you've demonstrated. Foreigners might have made the mistake of confusing it with freedom. Silly them.

Foreigners are silly because they want freedom without granting liberty to their fellow men. 'Freedom' means permission to do as you please. 'Liberty' is the second part of a three-part Creator endowment including Life and the Pursuit of Happiness. The US could be trusted with freedom because they had a legacy of respecting liberty, some of it gained from their shared valuation of the Rights of Englishmen at the time, and some from their lifetime on the continent with much of their own experience in fighting for it against French, Indian, and especially British wars. Contrast this with the French Revolution, where the people's freedom to rule the country devolved into a bloody dictatorship in short order, with the world-conquering ideology of Napoleon rising out of it. A revolution by people who have had no experience in self-government is generally destructive. And when the ideology is as suicidal as Islam and the weapons as destructive as nuclear, there's gonna be a whole lot more conditions placed on democratizaion.

Maybe President Bush should found a "Ministry of Liberty" dedicated to making sure that the populations of other countries either acted as the US wanted or didn't get the chance to choose. It would have a suitably Orwellian ring, dontcha think?.

You're a sophomoric hack with a barely cursory knowledge of Orwell, America, or history, American or European. The fact that you're still floating these simplistic canards is evidence enough.

[patteeu]

2) It may be good policy for America to help spread freedom(and I believe it is) but it is not her responsibility.

IMO, this is the right answer.

The poll question is flawed in that the NO response collects votes from both those who oppose GWB's articulation of US policy and those who support it but who don't think it is based on a responsibility toward anything but self protection.

[HerodionRomulus]

[QUOTE=geochron]Does anyone believe his speech means the US is going to try to bring freedom to Tibet, China, Uzbekistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, for instance? QUOTE]

Or Cuba? A known terrorist state. A country which is close and hopefully logistically easy to attack. Plus we have a military base already there. And a country which clearly lacks freedom. And it has attempted the subversion of it's neighbors and has used military force to destabilize several other countries.
Cuba is clearly an imminent threat to the US.

[HerodionRomulus]

As to the thread, I voted No.
It is not the US responsibility.
It may be a preference and the US should by good example show the rest of the world the benefits of freedom.
Of course, first the war against it's own citizens should stop.