Posted on 02/26/2005 11:16:52 AM PST by Ohioan
Moderator:
Welcome to our debate between the current President and the first President of the United States. The subject is, "Should The United States promote Democracy In Every Land?" George W. Bush speaks via his Second Inaugural Address, January 20, 2005. General George Washington speaks via his Farewell Address, September 17, 1796. Since Mr. Bush has proposed an increased involvement of the United States in the domestic affairs of other peoples, in variance to specific policies recommended by General Washington, he has the Affirmative, and will go first. Then General Washington will answer. After that President Bush will offer a summary, succeeded by General Washington's rebuttal.
You will note in the text, that President Bush's paragraphs have been numbered, General Washington's lettered. These designations are to facilitate the reader in following our comments and analysis of the quality of the two presentations, which will immediately follow the debate. Such designations did not appear in the original texts. Now, President George W. Bush.
(Excerpt) Read more at pages.prodigy.net ...
First, we could not engage in broad commerce without either us or another power making sure ports and seas are open...and if it wasn't us, we'd likely be contending with another power.
Second, Bin Laden and his ilk hate us because we are measurably superior in many ways, and he considers that an insult to Islam. He hates us because we are, we are a great nation, and we are not Muslim.
Nobody likes the Republic turned into democracy thing. Ironic thing though, we use elements of democracy to meddle every two years in hopes of regaining the Republic we had.
One uses the most effective tools one has at their time in history. I think W's plan is good and more impotantly better than nothing.
And, pray tell, just how do you think that "democratizing" other nations, makes them less of a threat? Do you consider the Nazi party, which emerged from the Weimar Republic (a democracy) less of a threat than the Hohenzollern Monarchy? How about the Democratization of Rhodesia, which turned it from a food exporting Oligarchy into absolute chaos, where people much like the Virginians of Washington's day, have been run off their land--if not murdered?
But the point of the debate is not how bad Democracy can be. The point of the debate is that the Bush policy, by insulting much of the world, and violating the even handed foreign policy which won us the world's respect--by playing favorite nations based upon the President's arrogant judgment of their internal affairs, not whether they threaten us--is a wrong-headed policy. General Washington's remarks in our little staged debate, make the points, however, better than I can.
And by the way, how do you plan to pay for this arrogance, a problem suggested by Washington paragraph O?
But Washington did know about foreign entanglements.
Nobody likes the Republic turned into democracy thing. Ironic though, we use elements of democracy to tinker every two years in the hopes of regaining the Republic we still can see.
One uses the most effective tools one has available in their time. I think W's plan is good but whats more important -
it's better than nothing.
sorry, lost previous post somehow
Oh, man. The thing's unreadable.
I was hoping to see Bush says a few words, then Washington respond, and then Bush speaks again, etc.
That would have been engaging, and caused me stick with it.
But this is a bad format. I give up. I'm too busy.
And if I'm too busy, forget most of the rest of America, which has the attention span of a gnat.
one of the few oil paintings of the USS Constitution-Old Ironsides- is of her, under full sail off the Barbary coast making her presence felt, and trolling for pirates.
However, you join with the Wilsonians in mislabeling it.
Washington nor Jefferson ever advocated isolationism. Go back and read again Washington's paragraph L in the debate. "Liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest." That is hardly isolationistic. The debate is not between isolationism and non-isolationism; it is between maximizing our independence of action and allowing other interests to marginalize it. That is a very different thing.
Under the Washington/Jefferson foreign policy, America is free to pursue her interests and her people's interest in every corner of the earth. That is not the issue in this debate.
No doubt with a full complement of kitties.
I know the answer to the debate and it's not a cop-out.
Washington was right in his time and Bush is right in his time.
Am I wrong?
That is pretty funny, considering that General Washington was an enthusiastic supporter of our Constitution, which (1) does not authorize meddling in the internal affairs of other nations; (2)does not authorize one President to bind his successors to a generations spanning foreign escapade; and (3) was designed to protect us at home from "Democracy." (Please, read Madison--the Father of the Constitution's--specific discussion of "Democracy" in Federalist Paper #10.
And, while you may like President Bush's ideas, how do you defend the fact that he used the term "Freedom" in at least six different senses in the Debate, at least three of which were contradictory, without making any effort to sort out just what he was talking about, or how to resolve the contradictions?
Spreading democracies to every corner of the earth is in our countries best interest. That is the issue.
It would have been incredibly risky -- probably suicidal -- to be anything BUT isolationist in the Washington era.
Oh, please.
Contradictory to you, not to thinking types.
This is childish, and irrelevant without noting the context of the times. George Washington was speaking about the War between France and Britian, which was tearing apart the solidarity of Americans and creating a division between pro-French Republicans and Pro-British Federalists. It was ruining our trade and naval commerce and both nations were acting beligerent to the U.S. Washington was saying not to get involved.
The world and the country as progressed alot since then. But it is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson, shortly after this Inaugarual adress, was successful in building an international coalition to quell the Barbary Pirates (i.e. Islamic Terrorists) who were interupting American trade. I would say George W. Bush is merely carying on the tradition of our Founding Fathers.
Both in the published debate, and in his writings that were to the same effect, Washington never once suggested that we should not form alliances. He did not oppose the idea of common interests, whatsoever; nor joint action. That is wholly beside the point. The point is made very clearly in the portion of Washington's words, included in the debate. It goes to avoiding permanent involvements, commitments that limit our freedom to pursue our own legitimate interests and those of our people.
No one is criticizing the present President for forming alliances to go after the Terrorists who attacked us and may be planning additional attacks. Certainly not I. See War 2001!--The Surest Path To Victory.
William Flax
Things which threaten us were, are and always will be of interest. That is not what he was referring to. But the internal politics of every land involve matters that have little interest to us. There is all the difference in the world between dealing with threats, and simply cultivating other people's hatred by meddling in their internal affairs. (And it is not as though we benefit when we do meddle. For some bizarre reason, instead of rebuilding Iraq out of their Oil future revenues, the Administration is running up America's debt. Will we ever see any of that money back--much less actually benefit?) Read Washington paragraph O.
Thank you for the response. I appreciate the fact that Flax appears to make room for the war on terrorism. I do however come away from this exchange with the feeling that Bush would be unable to thread the needle that would garner the full support of Flax, or this thread would have been unnecessary.
For this reason the premise of an imagionary debate between Washington and Bush doesn't hold much appeal with me.
Hussein was a time-bomb waiting to tick it's last tick before exploding. As a head of state, he had evidently opted to become the silent (or not so silent in some instances) financial backer of terrorists. How then could a war on terrorism be executed, without addressing this loose cannon?
Even as a man who might limit himself to domestic violence perpetrated against his own people, I withdraw from the idea that the U.S. should not have become involved.
Take care.
Well, first of all, Mr. Bush used the term "freedom," in at least six different senses in the debate. Some of those were contradictory. So before you spread something, had you not better first define it?
Of course, you know, there is little new about Mr. Bush's proposal. Aggressively spreading Democracy in the Third World was the foreign policy of the United States under Dean Rusk (1961-1969). The casualties from that policy were spread all over the African Continent. Ask some of the Ibo tribesmen in Nigeria, or Tshombe's people in Katanga, about the benefits. Or ask the Rhodesians, about that policy's later "success," in 1976-1980, in transforming the food exporting land of bounty into Zimbabwe.
It is a foolish proposal, at best.
And yes, I do consider democracies to be far less of a threat than dictatorships, and Washington did too.
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.