Skip to comments.Brilliant Think Piece: How Did Freedom Become So Controversial? (Rush Lits Into Bush Critics)
Posted on 01/21/2005 3:21:06 PM PST by goldstategop
I know that there's a lot of criticism of the president's speech. It began last night. It has carried on into this morning and today, and I know that some of the criticism is even coming from Republicans. I'm not going to address the criticisms of each individual specifically, but, rather, I want to try to take the apparent broad themes of the criticism -- especially from the left. The complaints from the left include that Bush did not mention any specifics about his plans to promote freedom in the world, and that we had some complaints -- even one from the right -- that he mentioned God too much in the speech. "There was just too much God," and, you know, I think about other aspects. This is a philosophically ambitious speech. I find it fascinating. I really do here, folks, and in the plain old common-sense realm. I find it fascinating that standing for and desiring and promoting freedom can become so controversial. It literally stuns me. If you go back -- you know, one of the first things I would ask the left, who are raucously criticizing this speech, could we go back into histoire and could we ask ourselves, what was the purpose in the founding of the United Nations?
Wasn't the purpose in the founding of the United Nations peace? World peace? Wasn't it supposed to be a body that was to promote the best of mankind? It was supposed to. Isn't that what it was all about? Now, the people who react to Bush's speech, who say, "Well, that's just silly. Why, that's sophistry. Why, that's too ambitious. Freedom? For everybody in the world? Ha, ha! What a joke. Ha, ha. You idiot, Bush. Freedom around the world? How are we going to do this? Are we going to invade every country that doesn't like us? Ha, ha, ha, ha." Well, then I might say, "Why the hell have a United Nations?" What the hell is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has become a home for renegade thugs, third-world pimps, tyrants and dictators and the last thing it's interested in is world peace. It is a corrupt body and nobody has a problem with it! Nobody but us. Around the world, the United Nations is looked at as the repository for all that's whatever in the world. Certainly isn't good. So here we have a president who talks about something as simple as fundamental to human existence as freedom and desiring it for as many people in the world as possible, and we get snickers, and we get hrumphs and we get, "Oh, yeah, right! Really! Ha, ha, ha!" a bunch of deriding laughter, and yet those same people look to the UN and see something godlike -- and therein, ladies and gentlemen, lies one of the problems with the critics.
Lincoln's Gettysburg address did not get into the details of the Civil War and nobody complained about that. Lincoln did not discuss in detail his post-war plans prior to victory in the Civil War. He wasn't going around making speeches detailing specifics. What's the demand here? You know, today is a good day. Defeating the axis powers, World War II axis powers, that was ambitious. So we get hit at Pearl Harbor and we decide, "All right we're going to clean this whole cotton-pickin' world neighborhood up." So we went to Italy and we went to Europe and we went to Germany. We went everywhere that we had to do to clean this world up. That was ambitious as hell. We saved this union. We had over 500,000 American citizens die to save this union. It was called the Civil War, for those of you who graduated from the American public school system. Ending slavery. We ended slavery. That was ambitious. We even had a stupid Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott, that said it was okay for one man to own another man. Those of you who believe in the court, ha, ha. Try bringing that ruling back today. Let's see how long the court survives. It was ambitious. We didn't accept a Supreme Court ruling back then. We said, "Screw that." We took up a great ambition and people in this country died to end slavery and to preserve the union.
Winning the Cold War? That was ambitious. One man thought it possible; everybody else snickered. "You can't do that. What do you mean? Why, there has to be a balance of power. We can't beat the Soviets. It would lead to nuclear Holocaust. Oh, no, we're all going to die!" We won it without firing a shot! We just buried the man responsible for it last year, Ronaldus Magnus. Where are our memories? What do you mean we can't do this? You shoot for the heavens; you shoot for the stars; you get there. You certainly are not going to get there by not aiming at them. For crying out loud, folks, what in the world is happening to our society where a broad-themed vision of goodness and kindness, and freedom for as many people as possible is snickered at, and in fact, has become controversial. A president needs to think big because if he doesn't, he won't accomplish anything. He becomes mired in the agenda of the bureaucrats, the diplomats, and the civil servants. Somebody tell me, we want to get enmeshed in the agenda of the State Department? They exist so that they will never cease to exist. They want problems to solve so they never have problems to solve so they never solve problems because that's the only reason they exist. It's sort of like the Reverend Jacksons of the world. If we ever really eliminated racism, he wouldn't have a job, and neither would the Reverend Sharpton.
If they can't point to problems and show examples of racism and bigotry and all that, those hucksters don't have a job. Same thing in the State Department: If people aren't killing themselves for stupid reasons all over the world, there's no reason for the State Department to get involved diplomatically and not solve it. So, yeah, let's have the agenda of the State Department. Yeah, let's do that. Let's have the agenda of bureaucrats. Let's have the Bill Clinton agenda, where you don't do anything hard. You don't do anything majestic. You don't do anything big, because your approval rating might suffer and you won't have a library that costs $163 million with a massage parlor on the side that nobody wants to visit. You'll have the luv of the UN, the luv of the State Department, the luv of Madeleine Albright, the luv of everybody if you don't do anything. If you tackle big visionary issues like Abe Lincoln, any number of other presidents, yes, you're going to have enemies. They're going to hate you; they're going to snicker, but boy, a vision of freedom? I tell you, you people who are having big problems with this, you better get and read it, because (interruption). What? What Mr. Snerdley? I'm talking to people in this audience. Get Natan Sharansky's book. We've interviewed him in the newsletter. We've talked about the book.
It will help put all this controversy, I think, that's being generated by the left and some on the right into perspectives. Clinton. Again for all the talk, Clinton was nothing more than an administrator of the government. He was nothing more than the bureaucrat-in-chief. He accomplished nothing. He chose not to think big, and the consequences were devastating in terms of our national security. He avoided dealing with real problems that were resulting in the loss of innocent American lives. He put them aside so as to protect his so-called legacy, and his approval rating. No one urged him to attack the Taliban and defeat those forces before they strike again and he didn't. Even in the Mideast, these constant negotiations he had with Arafat. That was the safe source. It was what the UN would do: Invest all of your capital in a terrorist. Invest your capital in a terrorist is what Bill Clinton did with Arafat, and from his point of view, that was the safe course. Bush finally comes to office, says, 'To hell with all this. We got nowhere with this guy, Clinton, so to heck with him." We got nowhere with any president that simply wanted to administer the government and throw parties and have state dinners and try to get the mainstream media on his side to talk about what a great guy he was. Now, something is really... Who among us is actually intellectually opposed to freedom? Ah, that's an interesting question. Some people are acting like they are opposed to it. "Don't accuse me of opposing freedom!" Well, show me how your attitude would be any different if you were opposed to it. I must take a brief time-out here, ladies and gentlemen, but we will continue this... I wouldn't call this a rant. I'd call this a rather brilliant think piece and monologue.
RUSH: Now, look, just in the break, just in the last break, folks, two stories (shuffling papers) cleared them from the wires. I mean, it's amazing how the opposition is in lock-step. The left is saying one thing. Every media organ on the left picks up the theme, writes their own story, does their own interviews. First off, the Los Angeles Times. Doyle McManus, Times staff writer: "Putting Democracy First May Test Key Relationships." Oh, see, this can't be done! We can't do it. Putting democracy and freedom first? Why, we're going to destroy existing relationships that we have. Why, we can't do this! "For more than a century presidents have wrestled with the recurring conflict between America's democratic ideals and its real-world interests, interests that sometimes led the US into alliances with unpalatable dictators. In his inaugural address on Thursday, President Bush boldly declared that debate over. 'From now on,' he said, 'the principal goal of the US must be to promote democracy everywhere in the world, even where that may mean instability in the short run.' If Bush carries through on that pledge, it will be a significant shift in US foreign policy, which has often oscillated between promoting democracy and defending narrower military and economic interests. The president gave himself some wiggle room, but not much.
"'The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations,' he said, but he added 'the difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it.'" Why in the world everybody thinks that we're going to load up the military and send armies all over the world to do this is beyond me. This is not how this is to be achieved. The president never said that was to be the manner in which this would happen. You know, it's like I said yesterday. I don't even want to repeat myself. This is so fundamental, it's ridiculous to have to keep repeating this, "and the test of Bush's sweeping new doctrine, though, won't come in Afghanistan, but in more powerful countries like China and Russia, where the US wants to maintain cordial relationships with repressive governments for practical, political and economic reasons." All right, you know, call me silly. Call me naïve. Call me stupid. Say I have hubris. But if you ask me, the ChiComs are loosing grip on their country. Now, it's not happening overnight but the very economic freedoms that are penetrating the ChiCom wall are proof positive of what can happen with the introduction of market economics to oppressed societies. Russia? What the hell does he think happened in Russia, the old Soviet Union?
Look at the Ukraine elections, the surrounding countries that were controlled by Soviet puppets. It's just recent history. This is nothing you have to go back to the 1800s and read about to find out the possibilities. Thinking big throughout the last century is what got us where we are, and I'll get back to that theme here in just a second. The other story, ladies and gentlemen -- now, that's the L.A. Times. Of course this can't be done. Putting democracy first may test key relationships and we can't destroy our great relationships with these thugs. From Reuters: "Sweeping Freedom Proposal Could Pit US, Partners." It's the same theme. There's one theme. It's gone out on some fax machine. Every media organ on the left has picked it up and is running the story. "President Bush has made a sweeping promise to stand with oppressed people if they challenge tyrannical leaders, an ambitious goal that may put the US at odds with some of its anti-terrorism allies who lack popular support like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. 'The speech is nice rhetoric, but on a practical level means nothing absolutely, because it doesn't tell us how we're going to go about trying to achieve that goal,' said Ivo Daalder, a former foreign policy aid of Bill Clinton now at the Brookings Institution," one of the guys the Clinton administration who did diddly-squat about anything meaningful!
My friends, how many times have we talked about your individual life and your success track, and how many times have I tried to tell you, "If there's something you want to do... Let's say that you want to be a nuclear physicist. Don't go to people that flunked out of school, telling you, 'You can't do it,' and there are plenty of them. There are plenty of people who have failed at everything. Don't go talking to them. They don't want anybody else to succeed. They're obviously embittered and they're going to tell you it can't be done and even if you succeed, it isn't worth it because the people in that business will eat you up, chew you out, spit you apart, whatever. The thing to do is go talk to people who have gotten such things done. Go talk to people who are successful in the endeavor you seek to enter, and let them tell you how they did it. Be inspired and motivated by that. Who wants to keep going back to the Clinton administration to find out advice on anything? You know, Clinton appeased; Clinton tried to make friends; Clinton wanted everybody to like him; Clinton did what the left always wants everybody to do, and you know what we got for it? We got a burning hole in Manhattan where 3,000 people went to work one morning!
That's what you get when you try to appease these kind of people. At any rate, when you think big, big things happen. When you think small, guess what you're going to end up accomplishing? Little or nothing! When you rely on someone or something bigger than yourself, such as God or faith, you end up thinking big and you end up being humble. When you realize there's something bigger than you, how in the world can you have hubris? But that's what they say they've got. I really never thought that I would see the day when a speech focused on liberty and freedom, the fundamental foundation on which this country is built, would be panned, would be ridiculed, would be said to be controversial. But the truth is, the elites everywhere are saying just that. You know what really is at root here? You know why they don't like hearing about God? You know why they don't like hearing about freedom and big visions and so forth? The elitist liberals play god all the time. That's what liberalism is all about, folks. If you are a single parent and you're living in a hellhole, the liberal answer is: "Vote for me and I'll give you a program. I'm your god. I'm where you turn to. I'm where you have hope. I'm where you have salvation. The Republicans will kick you out of your house and starve you and steal your pork 'n' beans or what have you." The minute somebody comes along and suggests that this single mother in dire economic straits have faith in God, who panics? The left!
Anytime God's mentioned by anybody in a political realm, who panics? The left! Why are they so afraid of God? Why? Those of you who believe in God, what's the basis? Why be so fearful of God you've got to take it out of your Founding Documents; you got to take it out of the Pledge of Allegiance; you can't let it be uttered by elected officials. Why? There has to be a reason for the fear, and I think when you look at libs who think only of themselves, God threatens them. God is a competitor to them. Faith in something larger than government, faith in something larger than ourselves, is competitive, is competition to the left. They don't like competition. They stamp it out. They wipe it out. It's called political correctness. It's called not letting this idiot Harvard professor say what he thinks. They have to shut him up and ruin his career, even if he's one of them. They can't handle the competition! They can't handle something different and they can't handle change and they can't handle something larger than themselves, and so faith in God is a competition they can't win, so they besmirch it. They discredit it. They mock it, and make fun of it, and the people who have such faith, and if you doubt this, just look at the last presidential campaign and what it was based on, and look at the election aftermath when the left thinks that it was values and morality that beat them.
Look at the abject panic that they're in, because they know they can't compete with it. They can only stifle it and discredit it, and they have failed to do so. Playing god is precisely what liberalism is all about. I may be overstating it a bit, but liberalism's biggest challenge today is religious faith, faith in something other than them and big government. That's the stumbling block they have. That's the largest obstacle in front of their recovery. They have people who will not survive if they make a practice of citing faith in God. The left doesn't want to hear this! The loony left in Europe, the socialist left, doesn't want to hear about God. They don't want to hear about religion. It's too threatening. It's too frightening, and all it represents in a basic human sense is the understanding that there's something larger than ourselves, and that's essentially what the left cannot deal with, because they are larger than the rest of us. They are the elites. They are the ones that are smart. They're the ones that run the government. They'll protect us. They'll make sure we'll do the right things because we're too stupid to do it ourselves. When we know that there are forces, however we define them, greater than ourselves, and seeking to use that faith to improve ourselves.
When the left sees that, they are in abject fear! Because it means the gig is up. It means that more and more people are not going to look at Ted Kennedy as their salvation, or Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer or any other leftist elitists you want to mention. They're going to look to things larger than themselves and their government, and this is, I think, the central reason that George W. Bush is so feared. The fear manifests itself in ridicule and insulting laughter and mockery, but make no mistake, folks: It is real, quake-in-their-boots, fear. Read the Declaration of Independence. All of its lofty talk about natural rights, God, equality and liberty? No wonder the left has school teachers that are trying to get that document banned from being taught in Cupertino, California! You want to read a lofty document? You want to hear about an ambitious vision of the future? Read the damned Declaration of Independence. Let's start making fun of that and then let's say, "Oh, no, that's not possible!" Go back to the 1700s and tell the people that wrote that, "Oh, you're silly. We can't do that. That's not possible. What do you mean? Only 37% of the people are in favor of this." Yeah, that's something lofty, and then the Constitution. Oh, oh, oh! Let's look at that. "That will never work, that will never hold up."
The world and life is full of the Can't Do It's, the Can't Get It Dones, the We Shouldn't Do Its, and never, ever, as long as you live, listen to them, folks. They've got nothing to teach you. They have nothing worth inspiring. Big issues like immigration, they're huge issues out there that have to be discussed that require a large vision and an understanding of the elements of freedom. Why is it assumed that we're going to militarily invade every non-free country? That's not Bush's point. The goal is on to promote freedom through all our dealings with these other places. Why the hell should freedom be so friggin' controversial and why in the world do people come along and say, "It can't be done. It's just silly. Why, that's not possible! Who are we?" Another way to look at this: Who the hell are we to say, No, they don't want freedom. No, it's not for them. It's only for us? "I'm not saying it's only for us, Rush, but they're..." Yes, you are. When you are denying the right of other people to be free, you're saying it's good for us but not for them. On what basis do you have that right? You didn't create these people. You didn't create them in their image. You have no knowledge of their lives whatsoever, other than what you're told by a bunch of people in the media who couldn't get it right if their lives depended on it anymore. What ought to be controversial today is the large number of people who think this isn't possible and shouldn't be done, and is too risky, and are worried about making the Chinese mad, worried about making the Pakistanis mad, worried about making who the hell else knows mad. That's how we got along with the Soviets for 30 or 40 years until somebody came long who didn't give a rat's rear end whether they got mad, because there was something larger and more important than whether somebody got mad at us. People on the left cannot get out of the notion that everybody revolves around them. They are the center of the universe. Their thoughts, their hopes, their dreams, their fears: That's what should define everything, and it has for too long, and those days are over.
0nce again, Rush gets it right
I had the same thought last night -- when did the Democratic Party become the biggest opponent to the spread of democracy?
It's time that Kerry signs Form 180.
Wake up Right Wing Main Stream Media.
Rush was on Fire today.
Rush is correct, once again.
I find it astonishing that so many hard core conservatives are shaking in their boots tonight at the thought that America should be willing to support those seeking to get out from under the boot of despots and dictators.
Rush is the master of logical clarity and passion for what is right.
Last evening, Alan Colmes I think it was, was throwing cold water on Bush's "spread democracy" doctrine, saying that "Bush really only has 2-and-a-half or 3 years to get this done...is it even feasible?" Colmes is a small thinker. He assumes that Bush can work at his objective while he's in office, and then the US can dump the policy and move on to something else. But what Bush articulated in his inaugural address is nothing short of the replacement of the Cold War policies. The effort to defend the western world from the threat of Soviet Communism lasted over 50 years -- Truman through Reagan. Every administration, Democrat or Republican, was dedicated to the policy. I think Bush articulated something that may take 20-30 years to achieve, maybe less, but it is something that the US should dedicate itself to, and work on into future administrations. He's articulating the next great endeavor for America, and candidates for president in 2008, 2012, 2016, etc., will likely be judged by how they will promote the policy. It's to the detriment of the Democrats if they think this is a short-term, Bush-only policy. History is on the side of democracy, especially over the past 20 years. It's time we did whatever we can to speed this process along.
well it is a noble thought but there are some that think we should not be the world's policeman.............I actually see both sides of the issue.....the one thing that bothers me a bit is that Pres Bush says we will back you up if you want freedom.........well we didn't do this for the Shiite's under his father and if Iran decides to revolt right now......do we have the resources to help????... Just my thoughts, no need to flame me, I'm just looking at both sides
Me too,I have felt my entire life that the US not only had the right but the duty to try to foster democracy and freedom in the world.
Why?Because this is the greatest Nation on the face of the earth.To me this is the conservative position.
Thank God that President Reagan also shared this philosophy.By being a strong force at home and abroad the Soviet Union was defeated.He did not cower from the fight to extend freedom to East Germany,Poland,El Salvador etc.He took the fight to them and left a better world for the effort.
WHOO HOO! What a rant!
Freedom = economic prosperity that lifts all boats
President Bush did NOT say we will "back you up" carte blanche if you start a revolt, or whatever it is you imply.
Go back and re-read the speech on the White House web site.
And where are you getting this "do we have the resources? thing. I heard nothing about sending supplies or troops or anything.
Just verbal (moral) support from an American President who thinks the world would be better off with freedom than it would with crazy dictators.
"How Did Freedom Become So Controversial?"
Rush didn't get to be RUSH without hitting the nail on the hear.
Freedom became controversial because Bush means what he says. If Clinton had delivered this speech, everyone would be gushing all over it because they know he won't do a thing about it. Bush frightens and confounds the Washington establishment because he actually means what he says.
What a concept.
That's why Bush resonates in fly-over country. If your word isn't good, you won't last long.
Rush must have been reading my posts about the UN being FIlled with Gangsters, Murderers and Thieves!! I like his addition of Pimps though!! Rush hit the Nail on the Head.
Get the US, OUT of the UN and the UN OUT of the US!!
We are not "shaking in our boots," not at all. Some of us have been in the trenches, fighting collectivist ideology, and fought this sloganized nonsense in the 1960s, when misuse of the same terms, "Freedom and Democracy" was being espoused by the Dean Rusk State Department, and spreading havoc across much of Africa. We also understand why General Washington, who feared no man, advocated a very different approach to other Nations.
No, Sir. We are not "shaking in our boots." We are outraged. There is a very significant difference! Learn to live with it.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Doncha know? Freedom obsession is just a fancy way of saying we will spread the neocon Bush "hitlerism" across the many peace loving, innocent, downtrodden nations of the world, where we are commiting genocide of, now say it with me now, EEEE-slam! Also, our ill founded hatred of Socialist World Revolution and empowerment of, now say it with me now, the PEEEE-pull, who, wanting nothing more than peace and social justice, have never posed a threat to the USA, demonstrates that the capitalist running dogs want to o-PRESS the prolitariat, and starve out the people of color. Yeah, I know all about this "freedom" - just like 1984 man, freedom means slavery, and, the World Revolution will set you free! /sarcasm ..... Bbbbbllllrrrcccchhhh....ulllcchh.... baaaaaaarrrrfsplaaattt.
(Sorry about that last little bit, I guess I made myself a bit ill trying to spew that screed out with a straight face! :=)
Bravo! But, don't you understand, it isn't the same as the Soviets imposing Communism on other countries. We are better people. It's all about the motive. These people just don't know any better so we will be paternalistic and help them find the true path in the new American order. This is almost the foreign policy equivalent of hate crimes legislation and is sort of the logical extension of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding conspiracies, i.e. that you don't have to take a concrete action toward forwarding the goal of the conspiracy in order to be guilty. Now, you don't actually have to take a threatening action against the US. You just have to think bad thoughts. In any case, it still remains to be seen how global this new policy is. After all, the original Bush doctrine of being able to defend yourself against terrorism doesn't apply to Israel. And as I've said before, you can be certain that we won't be dumping those beacons of "democracy" (China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) any time soon. We are too dependent on China to make too many waves about human rights abuses, Pakistan is still carrying on the half-hearted hunt for bin Laden and Saudi Arabia has all that nice oil. However, just the proposition of such an interventionalist foreign policy is troubling, not to mention the sheep mentality of Republicans in endorsing it.
OK, I'll bite. If we are not consistent in insisting on the roll back of totalitarian, anti western and other such formations, in *all* places, including Communist Red China, then we would be rightfully accused of being half assed. But, let me challenge you with this. Given what we learned about trying to appease and negotiate with (as well as ignore and isolate ourselves from) totalitarianism, during the 20th century, what are we to do? The totalitarian disease is still out there. It is only a matter of time before it metastatizes once again. Do we wait for it to do so, possibly until it's too late, and end up possibly being conquered? Or, do we go out boldly now and try our level best to eradicate it?
To Summarize (IMHO):
With God, you have a belief that Life, Liberty and the Persuit of happiness are inalienable rights.
Without God, you lack clarity of mind to determine what is in your best interest and are therefore vulnerable to the schemes of charlatans.
In a nutshell, God's presence or lack thereof in the mind of the voter is the single most infuential factor in determining the balance of political power between those who would protect freedom and liberty and those who would seek to remove the institutions that protect freedom and liberty in hopes of securing forever, a tyranny.
The leadership on the left IS THIS calculating.
New tagline, courtesy of Rush
Simply calling attention, naming the unfree will make progress. Remember when the Soviets began to fall apart.... when Reagan called them the evil empire! The internal contradictions and the evil of their system became apparent. Freedom's power!
Natan Sharansky knew better. Lech Walenska knew better. Israel has done a pretty good job of fixing its problem, terrorist leader, by terrorist leader, without much discussion by us. Its pretty quiet now in Gaza isn't it?
What we do is tend to our own affairs and leave the rest of the world to theirs. I am not saying that we do not encourage the formation of democratic governments in other countries. What we don't do is interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. We would certainly be rightfully offended if other countries or the UN attempted to interfere in our internal affairs. Simply because our motives are better (in our own eyes) doesn't make the interference any less permissible. This speech takes the pre-emptive doctrine to its logical conclusion....now we aren't just preventing hostile regimes from attacking us by removing their capability to do so. Now we will be working against governments based on their attitudes toward us without needing covert action against us. If we are justified in, as you put it, going out boldly now and trying our level best to eradicate a philosophy we find repugnant, then we cannot claim that Islamofascists are any less justified in trying to wipe us out simply because we find them repugnant. We become them.
Just curious, have you ever read "The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Arendt? If not, I recommend it.
I'm sorry, what other sovereign country did Lech Walesa invade? If I'm not mistaken, he was concerned with the events in his own country. And once having helped to institute that change in his own country, I don't recall him trying to forcibly export that change outside of his own borders, which is what we now propose to do, benevolently if possible, but by arms if necessary. Same question for Natan Sharansky. Is freedom forcibly imposed really freedom? Or is it just a more benevolent form of totalitarianism. For example, what do we do if, in the unlikely event it happens, the Iraqis elect a Sunni government? Do we fail to recognize it's legitimacy and keep holding elections or recounting votes until we get a government we like (as they apparently do in Washington state?) Or do we recognize that life is a risky proposition and that part of the risk of having free will and freedom is the possibility of making wrong choices? Do we instead concentrate on fixing our northern and southern borders which leak like sieves to the extent that we are now searching for 16 potential terrorists headed for Boston? One can only shudder to thing what they might have shipped in before hand in the cargo that still isn't routinely inspected over 3 years after 9/11. Instead of worrying about spreading democracy, maybe we could actually get a Transportation secretary who will let the airports screen people based on the profiles of the mass murderers already known instead of blackmailing the airlines with massive fines for attempting to actually take a logical concrete step. And again, how will we explain the selectivity of this new policy? Because we already know that certain nations like China, Pakistan et al. will be exempted. Do we have a lottery to see which one we choose to export democracy to first?
Yes and it is irrelevant to my point. We weren't elected God of the world to regulate the governmental systems of other sovereign nations. If they pose an imminent threat of attack toward us, then we may have justification for removing that threat. We can certainly encourage as much as possible freedom movements in other countries. We do not have the right, however, to export anything other than the example of republican government to anyone. And while we're at it, why don't we try to actually have a republic again and get that actually up and running before we think about exporting anything to other sovereign nations?
Was 1941 the right time to get into WW2? Or would 1936 have been better? Or, not at all?
If we had intervened in 1935 - we might have averted the slaughter of millions. Fortunately, we are not going to make the mistake of watching an enemy becoming too powerful to threaten us again. We can't impose freedom by force of arms but we don't aspire to dominate the world like the Romans did. The power of our example should be enough to inspire those who seek liberty to come to love it as much as we do.
Learn to live with what?
Shaking in your boots? Or your outrage at President Bush's speech declaring support for freedom?
Maybe it's because conservatives have long been pragmatic realists who don't fall for utopian thinking. It used to be the Left who demanded we abandon or overthrow 'dictators' like Somoza and the Shah. We did. How'd that work out? Shall we try again with Musharraf of Pakistan? The Chinese oligarchs?
There were utopians in the 50s who insisted containment wasn't enough, that we should challenge the Soviets over Hungary. Eisenhower, who knew a good deal more about war than his utopian critics, ignored these fools. Hopefully this latest utopian excrescence is nothing more than rhetoric, and not a call for intervention on a global scale.
Apparently we are the minority. It's A brave new world. Global democratic revolution is the rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouching towards Bethlehem to be born.
Rush, telling it like it actually is.
Rush was on fire today. Especially in the first hour of his show. Thank you for posting this. I can now save it for posterity.
I am not advocating appeasement. And I agree that it is much better to kill them there before they get over here. But we do not have the right to dictate the form of government in other sovereign countries on the off chance that it will might perhaps someday make them less likely to fund terrorists. We find it objectionable that the Islamofascists want to change our form of government from a Socialist democracy into an Islamic theocracy. Why is it any different if we are the ones effecting the change? Is a new American Reich, which is what this proposal amounts to, more tolerable because our intentions are pure? What we are witnessing is most probably the final death throes of our "Republic". We want to export order to the world, a Pax Americana. The Romans seized on a similar goal as their Republic fell and they embarked on the course of Empire. Again, tend to our own defense, encourage freedom when possible. However, you can't go and remake other countries in our own image, which is what this philosophy espouses. Simply because our intentions are relatively benevolent doesn't make them any less wrong. Secondly, this policy can't be applied arbitrarily. It either applies to all countries who oppress their people or to none. And Condi Rice stated in front of the Senate that countries like China and Pakistan would be exempt from this type of policy. Do you think the terrorists won't know that and simply seek out more friendly territory from which to base their attacks? And, if no other country is hospitable to them, they can simply go to Mexico or Canada and walk over our border, as we have seen this week and do their planning right here. This is nothing more than rehashed One World Order policy from Bush senior, but with America at the helm. Freedom cannot be imposed from without, at the whim of a 3rd party. And what better policy to give credence to what the Islamofascists have claimed was our ultimate goal all along? To set up puppet governments throughout the Mideast or anywhere else will do little to stem the tide of terrorism. Instead, it will have the effect of removing the stigma of being a murderous terrorist and will instead give them the legitimacy of freedom fighters and rightly so, since we will be initiating the "attack" by interfering in the governing process of their sovereign home nations. I am still trying to find the section of the Constitution that gives the President the authority to decide the fate of the governments of other sovereign nations. However, that's not surprising since that document long since ceased to be paid more than token lip service.
I think you are overemphasizing the use of force and underestimating the power of ideas contained in Bush's speech. Look at the Ukraine (and didn't Lech Walesa make some speeches there?) Freedom brought about by popular will with moral support of other nations. A large part of what brought the USSR down was Reagan naming them as the evil empire.
Can Democracy be imposed by force? What about Japan?
This is more of the same lunacy that suggests that you can have an educational system, where no child is left behind; that believes it does not matter where immigrants come from; that believes that social environment determines human potential and culture, rather than the other way around. Since some of the "Neo-cons," at least, have above average I.Q.s, it is not that they are all stupid. But they are living in a fantasy world of unreality. And to end where I began, whether that fantasy is motivated by Nazi like sentiments or Communist sentiments, it is fantasy none the less. We need to be done with them!
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Rush Limbaugh at his best! He obviously untied the other half of his brain on this synaptic stream of FREEDOM.
Spouting words that have different meanings to different peoples does not make your point--it does not justify disregarding the counsel of men who understood both history and human nature. Have you even bothered to read George Washington's counsel: Farewell Address.
Or Jefferson's: Memorandum To Washington.
Or can you with a straight face--or straight key board--suggest that George W. or Rush are in their class?
Yea, lets go back to the successful policies of the last 30 years, that resulted in 9/11, Saddam and Sons "contained" with their billions, for WMD and the open funding of Islamic cults, OBL running Afganastan, Islamic cults roaming the globe murdering innocents, US military, US institutions, with impunity, a corrupt and failed UN, and Arafat with a "peace" prize.
I'd say give the "neo-cons" a least 30 years, since the "paleos" policies have failed.
I'd be quite happy if we simply cut off all fiscal and material aid to any who held a bad 'attitude' toward our being or our interests.
Starting with the UN, mexico, and the indirect financial boon of our military presence in germany.
The last 30 years saw the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe--far more significant than any thing those "cults" to which you refer are capable of impacting. But the issues in dealing with Communism had nothing to do with the "Neo-Con" fantasy. Aside from the Reagan years, and the Gulf War in 1991, however, I am hardly an advocate of our foreign policy since 1960. I supported the Viet Nam War, as a concept, but not the way that LBJ waged it.
For what was wrong with the Dean Rusk foreign policy (1961-1969), which involved the same mixture of cant and fantasy as the "neo-con" vision, see An American Foreign Policy; and Democracy In The Third World.
Your sarcasm shows a preoccupation with Islamic issues. While I respect all peoples, I would suggest to you that the major focus of American policy has not involved the Islamic world in the past; nor, other than rounding up the actual terrorists--who this time are Islamic--should it do so in the future. Our more vital issues are with Europe and Eastern Asia, the areas with the technology to someday threaten our existence, unless we can either keep ahead of them, or keep them friendly, or both. That the "Neo-cons" are more focused with playing fantasy games in the Third World, tells us something about them, not about our future.