ballot box: Politics and policy.

Freedom's Just Another WordBush gave a great speech. But what did it mean?

By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Thursday, Jan. 20, 2005, at 4:55 PM ET

Perhaps no politician since Lincoln has been better at linking the language of the Bible with the language of democracy, America's secular religion, than George W. Bush. In President Bush's second inaugural address, freedom, like God, comes calling in the night. It comes "to every mind and every soul," Bush said, and it "will come to those who love it." If freedom has left you, have no fear, for there will be a Second Coming, Bush assured, a day when freedom rules the earth. "We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom," he said. "We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul." In Bush's telling, freedom is "a fire in the minds of men," an allusion to the "revolutionary faiths" that powered the French and Russian revolutions. "It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of the world." Bush made freedom sound like God's call, a spiritual force that must be heard and answered willingly but that comes to all who have ears. Freedom must be chosen, Bush said, but it is inescapable that some day all will choose it.

In that sense, this was a speech that could have been written by Francis Fukuyama, who theorized in The End of History and the Last Man that worldwide democracy is inevitable because of man's natural striving for dignity and liberty. Fukuyama was derided by many historians for his assertion that history is directional, with a progress and a path that can be discerned, and Fukuyama's thesis took a severe hit when Sept. 11 drove home the realization that in parts of the world Islamic radicalism has become a compelling alternative ideology to American-style democracy. Yet here was Bush proclaiming that God and freedom are on the same side, and that the End of History is in sight. "History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty," he said.

As oratory, this was a marvelous speech, an inspiring statement of the universality of American values. But what might it mean in terms of the practice of foreign policy over the next four years? Bush said history does not run "on the wheels of inevitability," but he also professed "complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom." If freedom is inevitable, to paraphrase Clayton Williams, another Texan, why don't we just lie back and enjoy it? Are we asked to do anything to advance its cause? Are we democratic Leninists now, trying to accelerate the natural date of History's end?

Bush set a clear goal for the country—"So 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 might be called a second Bush Doctrine (the first Bush Doctrine being unilateral pre-emptive war in the face of gathering threats). But what is the means to this end? It is "not primarily the task of arms," Bush said, so the optimistic interpretation is that Bush has signaled that he is replacing hot war against tyrants with cold war. But Bush also declared, "America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause." Adding to the confusion, Bush implied that he will be patient with friendly governments, such as Pakistan, when he asked countries to merely "start" on the journey to democracy.

Moreover, the entire thesis of Bush's address is questionable. "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one," he said, because democracy is an elixir that will defeat fanatical terrorism. But were Timothy McVeigh or Eric Robert Rudolph driven to kill because America's democratic institutions failed them somehow? Bush's belief that an absence of liberty is the "root cause" of terrorism feels as simplistic as the belief of some of the left that 9/11 was caused by poverty. Although it's true that democratic societies do not historically go to war with one another, it's doubtful that democracy is sufficient to quell violence from nonstate actors.

The abolition of tyranny is a worthy goal for an American government, even if it is unattainable. Liberals, who will be inclined to quarrel with Bush's message, should have no objections to the values Bush identified as the guiding principles for his second administration. The issue is whether he really has any intention of promoting democracy in Russia, China, and the Mideast when promoting it comes into conflict with other economic and security interests of the United States. There is much reason for skepticism here, such as Bush's policy in relation to Saudi Arabia, Tibet, and Chechnya during his first term. But rather than criticizing Bush's speech, Democrats should nod vigorously and then hold him to it.

DISCUSS

E-MAIL

Chris Suellentrop, a former Slate staffer, writes "The Opinionator" for the New York Times.

Photograph of George Bush by Timothy A. Clary/Agence France Presse.

Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum

What did you think of this article?

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

Having become familiar with Michael Gerson's work, I'd say this was one of his better speeches. And Bush delivers a prepared text well. He always has.

In historical context the Inaugural speech was Wilsonianism neat, several shots of it in fact. No chasers invoking the importance of relating ends to means or prioritizing American efforts on behalf of liberty allowed! One would think that since we have armies in two of the countries we are trying to free from tyranny and have none to spare for the others some reference to setting priorities would be unavoidable. But the speech was meant to inspire, not inform.

Sadly my threshold of inspiration is rather high. I believe all people yearn for liberty just as I believe all novice violinists yearn to play at Carnegie Hall. There is no escaping the hard reality that satisfying either yearning is mostly up to them, not up to us. That is not historical pessimism or realpolitik. That is life.

…His speech today will be praised for its eloquence and vision, but it was not the speech of a wise man, or of a man who having run his last campaign has transcended the need to thrill Americans who already agree with him.

The great majority of them do, as far as enthusiasm for liberty and belief in the right of man. One may predict with perfect confidence that commentary on Bush's speech from his most dedicated liberal critics will focus not on whether he spoke wisely, but whether he was sincere. That is the problem with extravagant rhetoric from men holding public office and especially from Presidents -- if they don't acknowledge limits on our ability to make good things happen, no one else will.

Common sense will tell you that America's commitment to freedom will be ill measured by how democratic Uzbekistan is in four years. But President Bush will not, nor will his Democratic critics. Bush will not say there are things we will not do to bring liberty to such places, though there are; his critics will not acknowledge that some cultures cannot sustain democracy or anything close to it, though they can't. Both deserve censure. But Bush is President. His is the responsibility to remind Americans of their duties, not merely to conjure up dreams of ending tyranny and evil. He didn't live up to it today.

--Zathras

(To reply, click here)

That's not a great speech. Reagan's first inaugural address was a great speech. "Ask Not" was a great speech. "I Have a Dream" was a great speech. FDR's first inaugural address was a great speech. Teddy Roosevelt's "muck-raker" speech was great. "The Marshall Plan" was a great speech, plus it had the added benefit of being a plan.

This was not a great speech. It was a nice speech. It was nicely written and nicely delivered, although the writer could have chosen a better vehicle. But it wasn't great. It didn't say anything about doing anything, and the things it hinted at doing have already not been done the first time round. Why bother not doing them again?

Suellentrop says "rather than criticizing Bush's speech, Democrats should nod vigorously and then hold him to it."

Hold him to what? Any Democrat who nods vigorously to that speech should be rushed to the hospital because he or she is having a seizure.

--Betty_the_Crow

(To reply, click here)

(1/20)