More than simply acknowledging that Bush’s second inaugural failed, it’s worth considering why. It wasn’t the writing; Gerson’s prose was once again poetic, and it wasn’t the delivery; Bush, despite his limitations, has become quite adept at reading the words others prepare for him. The problem, however, rested in the speech’s message. It outlined an idealistic vision of the world that was insincere, unbelievable, and ultimately hollow.
I should note that this conclusion isn’t driven by anti-Bush animus. Despite my bias, I can acknowledge a good speech when I hear one, even from this president. I thought, for example, that Bush’s first inaugural was excellent. This one wasn’t.
The message Bush sought to get across was simple enough: the world faces serious risks, those risks are exacerbated by tyranny and a lack of global freedom, and so the goal of our time must be to intervene on behalf of freedom everywhere.
“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…. 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.”
What’s not to like? Who’s against freedom? Is there a pro-tyranny constituency out there? On the surface, the goal of spreading freedom to those who suffer at the hands of tyrants is noble and worthwhile. Bush’s message falls apart, however, when one realizes that he didn’t mean a word of it. The president gave literally no specifics as to how he’d go about extending liberties to those who lack it and for good reason — he has no intention of following though on this new-found “vision” for the world.
When Bush started getting to the substance of his idealism, he made it sound like the United States would be sweeping into dictatorships around the world to spread liberty.
“We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. 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…. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”
Beautiful sentiment, but an empty promise. If thousands of students rallied in Tiananmen Square tomorrow to demand liberty, would Bush stand with them? Of course not; he couldn’t afford to alienate a key trading partner.
Indeed, the disconnect between Bush’s rhetoric and his record made the address and his articulated commitments to liberty almost laughable.
President Bush’s soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration’s increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world.
Some of the administration’s allies in the war against terrorism — including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan — are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin’s dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well.
This may actually be a dilemma rooted in semantics. Bush repeatedly alluded to the benefits of freedom and the importance of American allies, but they were terms that went undefined — intentionally. Bush believes Pakistan, led by a general who took over in a coup and then held an election with only his name on the ballot, is a “democracy.” Bush believes Saudi Arabia is a key American ally. Bush saw democratically elected governments in Venezuela and Haiti overrun by thugs — and celebrated their fall. If the president now believes that the “calling of our time” is to champion liberty and democracy around the globe, he’s a very recent convert to the cause.
And how, exactly, will Bush be the international leader for the spread of freedom? He didn’t say, which is not altogether reassuring considering he’s already invaded one country under false pretenses as part of his “vision.” Bush said yesterday that this goal “is not primarily the task of arms,” which I suppose is reassuring, except for that “primarily” word. The president never got around to telling us what primarily the task is. It’s an omission that warrants a little follow up.
The speech lacked memorable lines that will ring for years to come, and perhaps that’s in Bush’s interest because the sooner people forget about his remarks, the less his critics will be able to use it against him for the next four years. Every time Bush looks the other way about democratic abuses in Russia, or Kuwait, or Uzbekistan, or China, or any of the many countries Bush embraces despite despotic tendencies, we’ll ask, “What about the imperative to stand for freedom in ‘every nation and culture'”? He’ll have no answer, which makes yesterday’s speech worthless in every way possible.