Here are a few great proclamations of the president:
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.
Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government because no one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave.
And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and baggage of bigotry at the same time.
And Bush inspired young people with this statement:
Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.
Wonderful ideals. I love especially the last one. In it we are beginning to get a glimmer of hope that Bush sees the values of cooperation, a word he rarely uses. But it's only a glimmer. What I see is how Bush defines "freedom":
By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.
In Bush's vision of "freedom," each citizen is on his own and standing on his or her own 2 feet. Each is concerned with his own welfare and does not give a damn about his neighbor's welfare. If he knows how to exploit the other, let him do it and more power to him. "Freedom," according to Bush, is laissez faire capitalism, the glorification of dog-eat-dog free enterprise, and winners in control.
Isn't this why Bush works for tax cuts for the rich, for deregulation of multinational companies and for the easing of environmental regulations? Not my idea of freedom.
How does Bush plan to achieve his so-called "freedom"? Andrew Sullivan, who calls himself a conservative, had this to say:
How do you square domestic freedom with the curtailment of civil liberties in a war on terror? How do you proclaim that America is a force for freeing dissidents, when the government now has unprecedented powers to detain anyone suspected of terror across the globe and subject them to coercive interrogation techniques that the government will not disclose?
Blogger Bull Moose agrees:
He is oblivious to the notion that he speaks ever so eloquently about advancing freedom abroad while he imposes economic policies that promote plutocracy at home. Wilson, FDR and JFK all expressed similar sentiments about advancing freedom in distant lands. But they also advanced equality and economic justice at home.
Ronald Brownstein, in today's L.A. Times, is more specific. He shows that Bush's actions in favor of "freedom"
...empowers Americans or isolates them by undermining the collective institutions we have built to safeguard each other from life's reversals.
Bush would allow workers to divert part of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts, but that would increase the pressure to cut the system's guaranteed retirement benefits. He wants more workers to pay for their healthcare with tax-favored accounts, but his vision risks unraveling the system of employer-provided insurance that covers most Americans.
"Freedom," according to Bush, means everybody is on his own and cooperative institutions are left to die. Is this how we build a decent society?
And how does Bush intend to achieve "freedom" abroad? I must quote from his speech:
America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
"Bullies" is the key word here. And how has Bush acted toward the rest of the world? As a bully. Bush is always right. If allies don't listen to him he will go it alone. If the UN does not understand what is happening he will work without the UN. If half the people in the U.S. are against his war policies, it does not matter. He knows he is right.
Here are a few things to remember:
> We declared war on Iraq with "Shock and Awe"
> Bremer instituted policies in Iraq that gave rebuilding work to multinationals like Halliburton and other American companies. Iraqi businesses were excluded
> Alberto Gonzales was instrumental in lowering American standards on torture, which led to Abu Ghraib torture incidents, and Bush appointed him Attorney General
> While Bush spouts freedom and democracy, Cheney disregards Europe, which has been negotiating with Iran by presenting this warning:
One of the concerns that people have is that Israel might do it without being asked. If in fact the Israelis become convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability - given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel - the Israelis might well decide to act first.
It would be wonderful if the whole world were democratic. It would be great if there were freedom everywhere. However, Bush has a restricted sense of "freedom." Furthermore, he is going about the entire project the wrong way. You cannot impose freedom. Imposing freedom is an oxymoron. Neither can you impose democracy. Democracy, as well as freedom, must grow from within.
To spread democracy we must first present a good example of a democracy where true freedom rings. We must smooth our tough economic competition with regulations that help all, not only the rich. We must build our communities where people help each other. We must work together with the UN and with our allies to spread through peaceful means true freedom and democracy.
The inaugural address was breathtaking and presented many inspirational thoughts. But it did not offer a good means of achieving these noble goals.
