Ace of Spades HQ

« The Angry Left: Not an Insult, But a Diagnosis | Main | If This Isn't the "Angry" Left, What Is It? »

January 21, 2005

The Speech: Media Reactions

First, the raves.

First, it was eloquent, noting that freedom lights "a fire in the minds of men" and represents both "the hunger in dark places [and] the longing of the soul." More important, the speech laid out an extraordinarily sweeping and ambitious foreign policy for the nation. In doing so, Bush broke down the barrier between the foreign policy idealists, of which he and President Reagan are the most notable, and the realists, who include his father and his father's two chief advisers on foreign affairs, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker.
The most significant statement in the speech was simple and not lyrical at all: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." That's quite a declaration, one likely to unnerve tyrants and autocrats and even a few allies around the world. But Bush wasn't kidding or just riffing.

Dick Morris (from O'Reilly last night; I'm sure he'll have this in his next column): He called it the greatest inaugural speech since JFK's famous "bear any burden" speech, and perhaps one of the five or six greatest inaugurals of all time.

Jon Podhoertz seems to appreciate the message, but stresses that this wasn't exactly a new theme for Bush:

IF you were listening to the commentary after President Bush's speech yesterday, you kept hearing the same adjectives and analyses from friend and foe alike: "Incredibly ambitious."
The president, everyone said, went farther than any of his predecessors in evangelizing for democracy and freedom abroad — in a way that places us on a direct path to conflict not only with the remaining regimes in the Axis of Evil but also with Russia, China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

...

Still, the insta-comments were unanimous. Bush's speech was something new, something unexpected, something momentous.

Ehhh . . . not really.

The speech was certainly a rhetorical knockout, and will solidify the reputation of Bush scribe Michael Gerson as the most important crafter of presidential words in the modern era (even as Gerson transits out of the speechwriting job into a key role as a policy adviser).

But it was really nothing new for Bush.

The president's faith in what he called "the transformational power of liberty" in his 2004 convention speech has been manifest in almost every major address he has given since 9/11.

And now, an pan from Peggy Noonan:

The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars.
A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty.

...

To the extent our foreign policy is marked by a division that has been (crudely but serviceably) defined as a division between moralists and realists--the moralists taken with a romantic longing to carry democracy and justice to foreign fields, the realists motivated by what might be called cynicism and an acknowledgment of the limits of governmental power--President Bush sided strongly with the moralists, which was not a surprise. But he did it in a way that left this Bush supporter yearning for something she does not normally yearn for, and that is: nuance.

...

Ending tyranny in the world? Well that's an ambition, and if you're going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn't expect we're going to eradicate it any time soon. Again, this is not heaven, it's earth.

...

And yet such promising moments were followed by this, the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.

One wonders if they shouldn't ease up, calm down, breathe deep, get more securely grounded. The most moving speeches summon us to the cause of what is actually possible. Perfection in the life of man on earth is not.

I don't quite side with Noonan, but I do understand what she's getting at.

Let us stipulate that a "forward strategy for freedom" is a perfectly good idea in the abstract, and certainly wonderful rhetoric.

The problem is that, no matter how sweeping and powerful Bush's rhetoric or idealism, realpolitik will always be an important part of our foreign policy. For two hundred years, we have sided with bastards on the theory that they were at least less ruthless or dangerous than the other bastards who opposed them; certainly Bush doesn't intend to abandon that strategy now, does he?

I've had this argument with numerous "idealistic" (read: non-reality based) lefties a hundred times. They are forever blaming us for dealing with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc.; they just never seem to grasp or at least admit that the world is frequently one of bad choices, choices between bad and worse, not bad and good. Sure, we'd all like to side with the Moral and Democratic Angels in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and pre-war Iraq; but where are they?

The "idealistic" take on foreign policy -- a Chomskyite one, quite frankly -- supposes a Good Option for each foreign policy question, and yet rarely is able to announce what that Good Option might be. We shoud always side with the White Hats, they say; but when asked to point out where the White Hats may be, they quickly change the subject to Rumsfeld's handshake with Saddam Hussein.

So: What are we to make of Bush's rhetoric? I find it preposterous that he's going to stop dealing with the bastards who are actually helping us in the War on Terror-- Pakistan, of course, and, less so, Saudi Arabia. I can't imagine he will make enemies of those who are (ahem) allies, simply because they treat their people viciously and non-democratically.

And, let's face it-- do you really want a truly democratic Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? I hate to piss in the punch bowl, but I fear what those countries would become if their people really had their way.

So the rhetoric was good. And yes, it's important public diplomacy; there will be some oppressed people, and hopefully some people determined to grasp freedom, who will take courage from Bush's words.

But what, ultimately, does it mean? We really will not be fighting tyranny all over the world. We can condemn it; we can make it a central rhetorical point; but we won't be taking active steps to fight tyrants in any but a handful of countries--- countries which actually threaten us, of course, like Iran and Syria.

And that's just realpolitik, not idealism.

And we certainly will not be pushing for free and open elections in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia any time soon.

So while Bush's basic point may be an interesting one, I think it was greatly overstated. Perhaps that's excusable, when one is making a thematic address. But to the extent he means it, it's truly a Mission Impossible and not one, I have to confess, I'm especially eager to undertake.

And to the extent it's empty rhetoric-- well, he can be excused for that, but in that case it isn't especially meaningful.

Although Bush has always been championing freedom as an answer to the ever-popular question "Why do they hate us?," I think the Administration has backed into putting forward this theory so vigorously due to the failure to find WMD's in Iraq. Without proveable stocks of WMD's, the Bush Administration needed an alternate justification. And yes, while they always talked up spreading freedom to those living in resentment and misery, it seems to have transformed from a secondary theory to the primary one, and very nearly the only one.

Let me put it another way. For a long time I've taken the following position on foreign policy: America's interests first, hopefully when combined with an objectively humane purpose. But, where America has strong interests, the humane purpose requirement can be relaxed. (Works the other way too: If there's an enormously important humane purpose, of course America should help out, even if it only marginally serves our interests.)

I don't think I've changed my mind on that simply because the President has announced the sort of completely-idealistic foreign policy I used to scoff at. If it was a silly theory when spouted by Chomskyites, how does it become valid just because a conservative President for whom I voted announces it?

I take solace in the fact that I don't think Bush truly meant every word he said in his speech, much like most Presidents don't really mean every word they say in every inaugural ever given. Shifting the emphasis to freedom-- fine. Actually making the fight for freedom the central American mission-- sounds a bit too grandiose to me, and destined to fail.

The world is what it is. We will continue supporting thugs and bastards so long as the keep worse thugs and bastards under control. And "forward strategy of freedom" or not, I don't expect that to change.

And I don't know that I'd want it to.

Update: Scrappleface's Cliff's Notes on the speech are humorous, but he means every word.

Thanks to "Someone."

MSM Update: The Washington Post notes the disconnect between the breadth of Bush's rhetoric and the deals he needs to cut in the real world.

Reader Reactions... are definitely anti-Ace:

Someone writes:

Ace, I call bullshit. Those are the only two types of people currently likely to sniff power. The others are silent, underground, or in prison as dissidents. These people will thrill in the dark to hear Bush's words, as Sharansky and other gulag inmates did to Reagan's "Evil Empire" declaration. In this light I find Noonan's reaction -- and yours -- depressingly small.
Besides, we found Hamid freakin Karzai, did we not?

Ouch-- depressingly small.

Yes, we found Hamid freakin' Karzai, and we installed him-- after a war.

I don't think we'll be going to war frequently. Which means we will, yes, have to deal on a friendly basis with the governments in power in some of the worst states in the world.

As a shift in emphasis, I don't mind Bush's speech. As a long-term goal, it's commendable. My major quibble is that, in my humble opinion, it's plainly at odds with practicality.

At the moment, we need the Saudis. That may change; it could be that a democratic, non-Islamist alternative to the House of Saud emerges. And sure, were such a wonderful situation to arise, we can talk seriously about undermining the Saudi regime.

But until then-- we need to deal with the sort of people that Bush's speech would indicate we should shun and undermine like there's no tomorrow.

R. Dennis Corrigan cites a book by Sharansky, which I'm embarassed to say I've never heard of:

Bush’s landmark speech can only be understood and appreciated fully by referring to Natan Sharansky's compelling book, The Case for Democracy, now required reading for Bush's inner circle.
From this book, p. 88:

"...the mechanics of democracy make democracies inherently peaceful, the mechanics of tyranny make nondemocracies inherently belligerent."

True, but in the short to medium term, we have tyrannies in the world. It would be preferrable that they emerge into democracies; but what do we do in the meantime while we're waiting for that to happen?

Obviously, it serves our interest to undermine a clearly hostile tyranny, as in Iran and North Korea; but what about non-hostile, or even somewhat freindly tyrannies? Do we alienate them when we most need them?

"When Freedom’s skeptics argue today that freedom cannot be 'imposed' from the outside, or that the free world has no role to play in spreading democracy around the world, I cannot but be amazed. Less than one generation has passed since the West found the Achilles heel of the Soviet Union by pursuing an activist policy that linked the rights of the Soviet people to the USSR's international standing. The same formula will work today."

Again, this is a hope that will unfold, if at all, in the longer-term. What about the next five to ten years?

He then offers himself:

American troops in pursuit of UBL had to stand aside while indigenous elements took over the task. After months of no progress, Pakistan, still ruledby a military coup, declared that it was just too much bother, too upsetting to the locals to effectively prosecute the search and seizure of the most wanted man on earth.
Cozying up to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and not insisting on their recognition of the rights of their citizens, has proved to be ultimately a failed policy.

"Failed" in the sense that we obviously have not gotten all we wanted from these regimes.

But I can imagine worse failures-- such as Islamists completely taking over these countries.

posted by Ace at 01:24 PM

Comments

Ace, I think you're dead wrong. We -will- be tossing the Saudis overboard, and Musharraf... But later rather than sooner. Because either the dynamics of the region will be changed so that free elections don't mean AQ or the Taliban taking over (which they obviously won't in Iraq, that's step one), or we're gonna have to blow them all up anyway. Bush's belief that sufficient majorities will, given a choice, prefer life as a bourgeois citizen to eternal zealotry and submission isn't mere "idealism", it's fact. We beat the Soviets, you know.

You may be surprised how quickly the upcoming election changes the dynamic. Even more so when the constitution's actually written and implemented.

Posted by: someone on January 21, 2005 02:44 PM

We will continue supporting thugs and bastards so long as the keep worse thugs and bastards under control--Ace

The problem is that the 'thugs and bastards'are no longer very reliable in keeping the lunatics penned up.This is especially true in the ME which is due to blow in the near future.Even the thugs and bastards know it which is why they are increasingly desperate for a way out.Their current way out is to blame everything on Israel and the US.Do you honestly think this is a GOOD thing or even a sustainable thing.
Bush had to include the whole world in the 'freedom'march but this is directed primarily at Iran,Syria,Iraq,Saudi Arabia,Egypt and all the rest of that devil's brew in the ME.He just can't say so.
It is not idealism;it is stone cold realism which happens by good fortune to also be the right thing to do.
The old order is dying and something must replace it.Either 'free' people or Bin-Ladens.You don't get to keep the now.It cannot survive.
If you don't believe this why not just abandon Iraq now as the loons want ?Surely another 'safe' tyrant will arise that we can buy off.

Posted by: dougf on January 21, 2005 02:46 PM

First off, I think we can all agree that our real politik towards dictatorial Mideast countries in fighting the Cold War and in ensuring our continued demand for oil contributed to the rise of radical Islam. Therefore it is not illogical to state that "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."

Second, It is clear to me that the administration does not have in mind a military crusade to rid the world of tyrants. In fact:

"This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. 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."

I think he meant those words.

Posted by: PeterArgus on January 21, 2005 02:49 PM

But this presupposes there will be non-tyrants to support.

What if there are not? What then?

And it has generally been the case that in the more troublesome sectors of the world, there are only two sorts of people to support: Tyrants, and would-be tyrants who just want their chance to do a little repression.

Posted by: ace on January 21, 2005 02:49 PM

You're spot on with a minor caveat: not everybody in those "bad" nations hates us. There are some who would greatly benefit from freedom and would be completely responsible as self-governors. And if things work out well, enough people might come around that popular government can work there too. So I don't think it's necessarily a hopeless goal and I absolutely think Bush believes in it. But in the near term? Bad idea.

And finding WMD was not the mission in Iraq. Removing Saddam was the mission. His assertions that he had disarmed could not be trusted, so we removed him to be on the safe side. Whether we find anything or not is irrelevant.

Posted by: PlacidPundit on January 21, 2005 02:50 PM

But this presupposes there will be non-tyrants to support.
What if there are not? What then--Ace

Come on Ace.You know the answer to that.Big explosions here;bigger explosions there.
This is Plan A---- there is only Plan B in reserve.The status quo,which you appear to be supporting is DEAD.

Posted by: dougf on January 21, 2005 02:54 PM

This morning a local radio station interviewed Jon Stewart. He characterized Bush's speech as a 'messianic' call to change the world...and ridiculed it. Freedom and democracy across the globe! Absurd! Ridiculous! Paugh!

When Liberals want to change the world, it is 'progressive,' or 'revolutionary.'

Conservatives just have a messiah complex.

Liberals aren't willing to shed blood to make the world better. They think this is their strength; they are precisely wrong.

They talk the talk, but they are really the new isolationists.

I hope that when they regain their senses, they seize the momentum that this President put in motion and help the world topple tyrants and spread democracy. Yes, probably one depraved dictator at a time. So?

I know it seems unlikely, but we can hope.

As far as Iraq goes, WMD's and 'freedom' were both beside the point. Hussein was in violation of the terms of his surrender. Every day.

Shooting at our planes, playing games with the inspectors, kicking them out of the country in '98, failing to show evidence that he destroyed certain weapons systems which we knew he had, yadda yadda.

You violate the terms of your surrender, that's it. We should have invaded the FIRST TIME he started teasing the Eagle instead of waiting all these years.

Posted by: lauraw on January 21, 2005 02:55 PM

Ace, I call bullshit. Those are the only two types of people currently likely to sniff power. The others are silent, underground, or in prison as dissidents. These people will thrill in the dark to hear Bush's words, as Sharansky and other gulag inmates did to Reagan's "Evil Empire" declaration. In this light I find Noonan's reaction -- and yours -- depressingly small.

Besides, we found Hamid freakin Karzai, did we not?

Posted by: someone on January 21, 2005 02:59 PM

Just remember this: for many on the Left invading Kosovo and overthrowing its leader without UN approval was a good thing while invading Iraq and overthrowing its leader without UN approval was a bad thing.

As for Ms. Noonan - I like and agree with what she writes almost always but would differ with her here. What better time to say grand, far reaching, challenging things than a Presidential Inaugural address? If you can't be a visionary then when can you be?

Posted by: too many steves on January 21, 2005 03:02 PM

Peggy Noonan?

I'd hit it.

Posted by: senator philabuster on January 21, 2005 03:17 PM

I don't think the "bastards" we are forced to deal with in the WOT are as big a bastards as some make them out to be..

Pakistan gets a bad rap. Pervez is not a bastard. He's done more to move Pakistan in a secular direction than anyone else to date. Ask the kids there. They have anti government newspapers and media as well as pro. You are free to criticize the Govmt during the day, and rock out to a metal band with a beer in your hand at night.

The so called "bastards" we are dealing with have a directional quality that we feel is essential to continuing our relationship.

What I mean by directional, is that they are moving in the right direction. Towards freedom.

The regimes we do not have good relations have a negative directional quality..

They are the real bastards.

Posted by: Hans on January 21, 2005 03:28 PM

I guess I read this speech entirely differently from everyone else.

Here's what I read, "If you are oppressed and want to live free and call out for help, we will hear you and help you.".

That's a pretty different impression than that being given by the pundits who, apparently, believe that the President is going to run around freeing people whether they want to be freed or not or is going to declare war on every single tyranny on the planet. That's not what I read in this speech.

The speech was a message aimed directly at the democratic movement inside Iran, the dissidents in Syria, and those imprisoned in Cuba, along with other places where folks are begging for a kind word and a few dollars slipped in behind the lines from us.

Posted by: Jimmie on January 21, 2005 03:29 PM

Ace writes:

"For two hundred years, we have sided with bastards on the theory that they were at least less ruthless or dangerous than the other bastards who opposed them; certainly Bush doesn't intend to abandon that strategy now, does he?

...

"I find it preposterous that he's going to stop dealing with the bastards who are actually helping us in the War on Terror-- Pakistan, of course, and, less so, Saudi Arabia. I can't imagine he will make enemies of those who are (ahem) allies, simply because they treat their people viciously and non-democratically. ..."

Bush’s landmark speech can only be understood and appreciated fully by referring to Natan Sharansky's compelling book, The Case for Democracy, now required reading for Bush's inner circle.

From this book, p. 88:

"...the mechanics of democracy make democracies inherently peaceful, the mechanics of tyranny make nondemocracies inherently belligerent."

p 97:

"In April, 2004, ... [Bush] went so far as to call the policy of building a free Iraq 'an historic opportunity to change the world' "

p.143:

"When Freedom’s skeptics argue today that freedom cannot be 'imposed' from the outside, or that the free world has no role to play in spreading democracy around the world, I cannot but be amazed. Less than one generation has passed since the West found the Achilles heel of the Soviet Union by pursuing an activist policy that linked the rights of the Soviet people to the USSR's international standing. The same formula will work today."

p.235:

"Saudi Arabia, a fear society of the first order... was funding terrorism against [Israel] by supporting Hamas and by giving cash payments to the families of suicide bombers."

p. 243, quoting Bush in his June 24, 2004 speech:

"' Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes, or Western hopes. They are universal, human hopes. And even in the violence and turmoil of the Middle East, America believes those hopes have the power to transform lives and nations.'

"I re-read the speech almost pinching myself.... (The parallel between the president’s words and my own ideas was so strong that a Washington Post reporter questioned whether I had become one of Bush's speechwriters.)"

Now, Sharansky has dealt with the Saudi question above, but let me add my perspective on Pakistan, which is a classic case in point of the Bush/Sharansky argument.

American troops in pursuit of UBL had to stand aside while indigenous elements took over the task. After months of no progress, Pakistan, still ruledby a military coup, declared that it was just too much bother, too upsetting to the locals to effectively prosecute the search and seizure of the most wanted man on earth.

Cozying up to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and not insisting on their recognition of the rights of their citizens, has proved to be ultimately a failed policy.

Read the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Do not these sentiments apply to Arabians, Palestinians, Iraqis and Pakistanis, as they apply to Americans, Ukrainians, Georgians, Estonians, Germans, Japanese, Russians, and Italians?

What business does the government of the United States have in ignoring these self-evident truths by dealing with tyrants? In the end it will bite us to rely on strong, “friendly” tyrants, fearing democratic alternatives. “Democracies, it is often observed, do not go to war with one another.” Op cit, p.76. Read the whole book by Sharansky to find out why.

Posted by: R. Dennis Corrigan on January 21, 2005 03:30 PM

Ace syas:

"But this presupposes there will be non-tyrants to support.

"What if there are not? What then?"

In "The Case for Democracy", p. 273, Sharansky actually names individuals in Saudi Arabia, the PA, Iran and Syria (among other countries), all dissidents fighting for more democracy in their countries.

Read the book!

Posted by: R. Dennis Corrigan on January 21, 2005 03:39 PM

Hey, Jimmie:

"If you are oppressed and want to live free and call out for help, we will hear you and help you."

I like that.

Posted by: julie on January 21, 2005 03:50 PM

Imagine before 9/11 if a leader, say Clinton, had said Afghanistan represents a distinct threat to the US; we will liberate it and make it answerable to its people. Most, if not everyone, would have thought this outrageous. It is difficult to imagine a more inhospitable environment for democracy than Aghanistan. And yet...

Following WWII Churchill called for free nations to begin the struggle against the Soviet Union and its Iron Curtain. It took 40 years for the struggle to end in victory. There were many times along the way when it seemed impossible. By the late 70s it seemed we were doomed at best to reach a grudging acceptance of their existence. And then along came Reagan, a lifelong cold warrior who refused to accept the learned advice of the "reality-based community". The final victorious battles did not involve any massing of armies but rather the overpowering onslaught of peacefull dissent.

Bringing democracy to Africa, to China, to say nothing of the Middle East are seemingly impossible objectives. I wouldn't doubt it might take as long as the Cold War took. But given the alternatives it is in national interest.

Posted by: on January 21, 2005 03:55 PM

Neo-cons loved the speech. Traditional conservatives are blasting it. I come down on the side of the traditional conservatives. In the long run, Bush will prove to have been very bad for conservatives.

Posted by: JimBob on January 21, 2005 03:59 PM

...and very, very good for the country.

Posted by: Rocketeer67 on January 21, 2005 04:03 PM

I agree. But the people of Afghanistan were not as wholly sold over to Islam as the population of certain other nations. Little boys and girls in Saudi Arabia have posters of famous suicide bombers up on their walls. They're heroes to some. That kind of thing will take a very long time to counter. I'm not saying it can't be done, but simply ending the House of Saud and replacing it with popular government will not change the proportions of voters with anti-Western biases.

Ruthless dedication to the Koran and Haddith and Islam itself must die a devastating death before freedom can prosper there, just as fanatical devotion to Fascism had to die in Germany before we could trust the majority of the German people with real control. For a very long period, the Allied occupiers took serious action to censor and control German society. Islam must likewise die. But it will be more difficult because believers think they have God on their side. That makes it much more difficult to convince people to leave their viewpoint.

Posted by: PlacidPundit on January 21, 2005 04:03 PM

I like Scott Ott's Cliff Notes version.

Posted by: someone on January 21, 2005 04:09 PM

The major task of any administration is to "sell" an idea. The idea of overturning Iraq and possibly North Korea is being sold through the wonderful, democratic idea of liberation and freedom. In his first term Bush was forthright. His marketing message is actually more nuanced now, and not less so as suggested by Noonan. Liberals and conservatives alike support the notion of spreading freedom. However, it's the neoconservatives now who are framing Freedom as a trigger to sell the idea of war. I'd like it if Bush just said "start the bombing now"!

Posted by: PRGirl on January 21, 2005 04:25 PM

Compare what Bush said today with the inaugural address of Lyndon Baines Johnson and the first inaugural address of Ronald Reagan and you'll find that Bush sounds much, much more like LBJ

It's time to get rid of the Neo-cons before they sink conservatism.

Posted by: JimBob on January 21, 2005 04:25 PM

JimBob:

I am not sure what I am supposed to get from that link. Peter Robinson never gives us the relevant details of Johnson's and Reagan's inaugural speeches.

Nevertheless we do have this:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more."

JFK wasn't a conservative in his time (difficult to think of him in the same period as the pretender "JFK" of today). So I guess you win on a technicality here if that makes you feel good.

Bush and Reagan seem to share a similar "romantic" belief in freedom. "Tear down this wall, Mr Gorbachev": Was that the words of a hard-headed realistic? Maybe Reagan was not conservative but a neo-con?!?

I can't think of anything about LBJ (frankly I don't remember anything from his inaugural speech) that would lead me to think Bush is more like him then Reagan. Maybe you could find something more substantive than your link?

Posted by: PeterArgus on January 21, 2005 04:44 PM

What Bush and his Neo-con suckups are proposing is endless wars in the name of liberty. That's not liberty and it isn't Reagan or traditonal conservatism. While Reagan called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, he still worked to achieve its downfall through peaceful means. Kristol and the rest of the Weekly Standard crowd need to be run out of town. They're dangerous and more and more conservatives are starting to recognize it. That's why Peggy Noonan blasted the speech in today's WSJ.

Posted by: JimBob on January 21, 2005 05:00 PM

JimBob, I'm a states rights Southerner. I think the Confederacy was right. In other words, I'm about as paleo-con as you can get. And even I realize that this is a good approach in general, previous caveats aside.

Posted by: PlacidPundit on January 21, 2005 05:09 PM

JimBob:

Read the quote from Bush's speech I posted at 2:49. How is he calling for "endless wars in the name of liberty"?

BTW, where's your LBJ quote? You need to provide a better defense of your position than insults.

Posted by: PeterArgus on January 21, 2005 05:10 PM

all I have to say is I wholeheartedly concur with the esteemed senator philabuster at January 21, 2005 03:17 PM

and did cedarford get a clone to drop by? Just call them diabolical Jews, jimbob, and be done with it.

Posted by: hobgoblin on January 21, 2005 05:12 PM

"Little boys and girls in Saudi Arabia have posters of famous suicide bombers up on their walls. They're heroes to some."

Because what else do they know?

Look, if you don't believe that having a real, functional democracy chock full of Muslims right next door to Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will have a major effect, then nothing the President said is going to convince you. In fact, you have to be convinced that the President is going to go to "endless war" because what othre option is there?

But the President noted, specifically, that force of arms was far form the only tool in the box in this effort. We do have plenty of other means at our disposal. The first and perhaps the most powerful tool we have is our ability to pick and choose who we want as friends.

So Saudi Arabia doesn't want to change? No problem. Kuwait will, or Iraq, or Qatar and we can achieve exactly the same strategic means with them as allies as we do Saudi Arabia. The message here is that we have a great amount of influence to broker around the world and from this day on, we're going to smile on nations where the people enjoy liberty and are able to determine their own destinies. That could be something as simple (but immensely powerful) as saying, in Iran, for instance, that we support the efforts of those fighting for democracy and that the oppression practiced by the government is an affront to humanity.

You think that'll have an effect? I'd bet cash money on it.

And we wouldn't have sent one soldier out of the country.

Oh, and JimBob? I distinctly remember Reagan walking out of a weapons treaty negotiation in Iceland and modernizing a nuclear missile force of hundreds of decidedly non-peaceful warheads in Western Europe. Peaceful means? Well, sure, I suppose you could call those things peaceful, insofar as the Soviet Union didn't send tanks throughthe Fulda Gap. But he damn-sure provoked the Soviets and the CW at the time was that he was egging them into a war.

Posted by: Jimmie on January 21, 2005 05:47 PM

Uh, Jimmie? Go back and read my comments. I more or less agree with the President. I was just offering some caveats about the simplicity of the road ahead. Democracy, in and of itself, will not always fix the problem. Social and cultural changes are often necessary. Go grab a copy of Islam Unveiled, by Robert Spencer.

Posted by: PlacidPundit on January 21, 2005 06:02 PM

A response to Peggy's WSJ op-ed today. You people just don't get it. I couldn't have said it better

LBJ Redux
Michael Abeshouse - New Haven, Conn.

I felt exactly the same way upon hearing Mr. Bush's speech. It struck me as being the equivalent of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. Ending tyranny, like ending poverty, is a worthy goal. But neither can ever be fully achieved, though we must constantly strive to advance these causes. Mr. Bush, like Johnson, has set the bar up way too high, in the stratosphere.

Noble intentions coupled with massive resources and energies cannot change facts of the imperfect human condition. See "War on Poverty," "Urban Renewal," Vietnam, etc.

Just as Johnson's "Great Society" goal ushered in the decline of liberalism, I think Bush's goal of a "tyranny-free world" is ushering in the decline of conservatism.

One would think our experience in postwar Iraq would have taught the president something about the mission of bringing liberty to the oppressed peoples of the world. The Iraqis did not greet us with garlands; they are greeting us with RPGs. In the end, people opt for national identity over paternalism. We won the Cold War precisely because we never let it get too hot.

Run the Neo-cons out before they destroy conservatism.

Posted by: JimBob on January 21, 2005 06:37 PM

Um, yes they did. I've seen the video, I know people over there. What you're seeing on the news is vastly different from what's actually happening. Now, the question that you can legitimately raise is, will this same experience be duplicated everywhere else? I don't think it can in the short term. Islam is not the same in Iraq as it is in the West Bank or in Pakistan. But once that changes? Sure it can happen.

Posted by: PlacidPundit on January 21, 2005 06:53 PM

Isn't this in effect what Reagan laid the groundwork for in central and South America? I'm not saying it's perfect (Venzuela, Peru come to mind),

but Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua for example are much better than those third world shitholes they were in the 70s and 80s.

Posted by: Dave in Texas on January 21, 2005 07:09 PM

PlacidPundit - I know you're on the President's side. The idea you voiced, though, seemed pretty common from the "that's too ambitious" side of things.

Sure, some cultural things have to change. Oddly enough, freedom and demorcacy tends to change them. The more free a society is, the more open it is. There are ample examples in the world of people who are Muslim and not out to cut off the head of every infidel they meet. Muslims in Iraqis need to see more of them (and many are them already) and Muslims in Saudi Arabia need to live right next to a whole nation full of them.

I think that spending a couple years next to Muslims who can worship their faith and enjoy the fruits of a free society at the same time is going to cause a lot of those Boys with Bomb Belt calendars to get ripped down.

Will you hae some hard-core holdouts? Well sure. That's how Osama got his start. But with free nations all around, the new Osamas won't have the decided advantage of having an Afghanistan from which to recruit and operate or a Saddam Hussein from which to get money.

And that makes us safer by a huge degree.

Posted by: Jimmie on January 21, 2005 08:14 PM

Y'all are missing the real debate!

Peggy Noonan..Would ya "hit it" or not?

Me...I'd hit it.

Posted by: senator philabuster on January 21, 2005 09:15 PM

Jimmie,

You're voicing opinions that seemed correct to me as well. But I just recently read the Spencer book and reread Third Wave by Samuel P. Huntington and there's some detailed analysis of Islam and it's relationship to Western ideals that is rather eye-opening.

There are Muslims who do not hate the West. But anyone who truly believes in the authority of the sacred writings must believe in subduing the world and killing infidels. It's an essential part of the religion for anyone who takes it seriously. Until Islam is neutered or destroyed, it stands in the way.

I think things will go very well in Afghanistan and possibly in Iraq. But it will be a while before these goals can be accomplished in a place like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. I really do strongly suggest that you read the two books I mentioned, as they give better insight into what's going on in both the ME and other parts of the world where popular government might develop. Read Third Wave first, as it was written in 1990. Then go through the Spencer book.

Posted by: PlacidPundit on January 21, 2005 09:44 PM

Ace, a comment on the update. Bush isn't a leftist. He doesn't have that insane obsession with keeping clean hands. But there's a difference between willing to strike short-term deals while you have to and viewing these unsavory guys (who are actually working against us as much as for us) as folks to be kissed up to and plan careers around. No more buying off State as the Saudis have done, or buying the Presidency as the ChiComs partially did. Ever.

Posted by: on January 21, 2005 11:50 PM

Previous comment was mine (damned "back" button).

Posted by: someone on January 21, 2005 11:52 PM

It was a Neocon suck-up speech Bush gave. More wars and US lives for "freedom" to ingrates or people too weak to fight for their own liberty.

Worse, it was effectively ghost-written by a Right Wing Israeli Politician, Natan Sharansky, who served as Israel's Minister of Construction & Housing, mostly in Settlement Construction. Sharansky is an ardent Zionist who has opposed any peace negotiations with the people under Israel's occupation until they become more democratic.

In the interim - until or unless Democracy flourishes there, Sharansky advocates 2 million more Zionists leave America & Russia & head to Colonize more lands.

Bush's speech initially sounds good, but too idealistic. When the rest of the world, plus non-Right Wing Americans realizes it comes from "A Case for Democracy" - a book written by a Right Wing Israeli Zionist prominant in the Greater Israel Colonization movement - Bush's speech will be DOA in Europe, the Muslim World, and every other country besides our "Dear Special Friend" - The Albatross of Nations.

Posted by: Cedarford on January 22, 2005 12:02 AM

Sounds like a good guy.

I think I speak for us all when I say, "so what?"

Posted by: PlacidPundit on January 22, 2005 01:27 AM

OK...I'm putting Cedarford in the "wouldn't bang' Peggy Noonan category. Not because I question his sexual orientation, but because I get the feeling she is a little too much of a "liberated infidel" for his tastes.

Me? I'd still hit it.

Posted by: senator philabuster on January 22, 2005 01:55 AM

I sometimes think those cedars refer to Lebanon.

He may be a paleo-troll, but he is at least a well informed one and civil about his prejudice.

Posted by: See-dubya on January 22, 2005 03:59 AM

Re the quote from Sharansky's book: My problem with that argument is that it's not true that democracies are inherently more peaceful. Democracies don't fight other democracies. They fight non-democracies like hell (and usually win, but that's another literature). They spend only a little less time at war than autocracies do (since autocracies will often fight other autocracies).

It's a little disingenuous to quote democratic peace theory to say that democracies will be peaceful. They may soon be at war with neighbors or powers who envy their prosperity and think they're an easy mark.

Happened to us.

(I liked the speech.)

Posted by: See-dubya on January 22, 2005 04:14 AM

Well, I think the plan is more that Democracies can do a better job of bringing stable material and social prosperity and will discourage individuals from partaking in the self-destructive pursuit of terrorism.

Posted by: PlacidPundit on January 22, 2005 05:44 PM

Nice post. I'll return. In a small saucepan: http://www.circe-gets-laid.com/archives/002587_mating_in_captivity.html , Fantastic blog

Posted by: Jesse Anderson on October 6, 2005 03:56 PM