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
click here to read article
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.
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.