America's new calling

The "Calling" presented by Bush

Bush's Inaugural Address had a definite theme, which Bush said over and over and over again. That theme took the form of two words: "freedom" and "liberty." As Jon Stewart showed on "The Daily Show," Bush said "freedom" 27 times and "liberty" 15 times. Bush used these terms to address domestic policy issues, but there is no question that the theme's greatest and boldest application was to foreign policy. Some of you right wingers probably don't want to agree with me, so maybe you will consider the views of Peggy Noonan, Reagan advisor, speechwriter for George H.W. Bush, and big-time supporter of George W. Bush. In an editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Noonan said "It was a foreign-policy speech," and "No one will remember what the president said about domestic policy."

Here are some excerpts from the Address which show how Bush applied the "freedom and liberty" theme to foreign policy:

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. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

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.

*******

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

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.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

*******

America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.

(emphasis added). When I first heard these words, my immediate reaction was to ask, "And just how are we going to do all that?" And that led to other questions, but as I was surfing the 'net to find other reactions, I found that others were raising similar concerns.

The logistical problem

I'll start with some comments from Zbigniew Brzeninski on The News Hour:

The fact is that the speech was high-sounding. If it was to be taken literally, it would mean an American crusade throughout the entire world, and I don't know how that would be implemented practically. More Iraqs, perhaps, or is it just a general statement which doesn't give us much guide to policy, suited for the occasion but not to be taken as the point of departure for serious policy?

*******

It just makes me feel that the administration at this stage is really very unclear regarding its genuine strategic doctrine. It has high-sounding rhetoric, but it doesn't have a real sense of priorities or directions. If the rhetoric was to be taken seriously, we would be overstretched globally to a devastating degree.

(emphasis added). Our military is stretched to its limits right now because of Iraq, and we are likely to have most of our forces in Iraq for several years. Thus, it is unlikely that this "calling" can be accomplished through military force. Our economic dominance is being reduced, and with the prospect of China's economy really taking off, that dominance will be further reduced. And Bush's "calling" is going to cost money--lots of it. How else are we going to free the entire world? With diplomacy and gentle persuasion? Bush's first term ruined any chance we have of that any time in the near future.

The "What do we do about current relationships?" problem

As expressed by Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post,

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.

(emphasis added). Aye, there's the rub. Brzezinski raised this dilemma at the beginning of the segment on The News Hour:

If the speech, if the speech was to be taken literally, then clearly it would imply commitment to some sort of a global crusade vis-à-vis a variety of states with many of whom we have all sorts of mutual concerns, even if we don't like their practical policies. I mean, take a few examples. Take China; we have a major state in stability with China, but China is hardly a democracy. What about the Tibetans? Take Russia; we have a common stake with regards to terrorism, but what about the Chechens? They're being treated in a tyrannical fashion. Take an even more complex issue: what about Israel, which is a friend of ours, and its security against Palestinian terrorists? But what about the oppression of the Palestinians and their desire for freedom?

Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times posed the issue this way:

If Bush carries through on that pledge, it will be a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, which has often oscillated between promoting democracy and defending narrower military and economic interests.

But making that change may not be easy. Will he press hard on China, a major trading partner; or Saudi Arabia, the source of 20% of the nation's imported oil; or Pakistan, a key ally in the hunt for terrorist leader Osama bin Laden?

*******

The test of Bush's sweeping new doctrine, though, won't come in Afghanistan, but in more powerful countries like China and Russia, where the United States wants to maintain cordial relationships with repressive governments for practical political and economic reasons.

The war on terror does present major problems for Bush's "calling." He said in the Inaugural Address that "My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. " So if that is his greatest duty, and if that duty is being fulfilled in part because of help from countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan, is Bush going to risk losing that help by trying to establish "democratic movements and institutions" in those countries? If so, is he not meeting his greatest duty?

The foreign credibility problem

Todd S. Purdam described this problem in a New York Times article:

James B. Steinberg, who was deputy national security adviser in the Clinton White House, said, "The objective is so sweeping that from here on in, every action of ours that falls short of this unequivocal commitment to freedom and to promoting the cause of freedom is going to be judged against the standard of 'You said you were going to do this.' "

Of course, none of you right wingers are going to believe anything anyone from the Clinton administration says, so you should be aware that McManus included this quote from leading conservative foreign policy analyst Robert Kagan:

"Now that Bush has made this his goal, he will constantly be challenged on how well he's living up to it. Take China, for example. When the president talks about 'captives in chains,' it's got to apply to China…We're going to come up short a lot."

In other words, Bush seems to have established, in an unequivocal, bold manner, a standard with no exceptions. And given his aversion to admitting mistakes or failings or doing anything but "staying the course," people across the world will necessarily think that is indeed the standard he has set. As indicated by Kagan and discussed throughout this post, this standard cannot possibly be met.

The domestic credibility problem

The description of this problem comes from Andrew Sullivan (and for really uninformed right wingers, Mr. Sullivan ain't no liberal):

There were times when the liberty theme became repetitive. And, of course, the relationship of rhetoric to reality is, as always with Bush, problematic. How do you reconcile the expansion of freedom with Bush's expansion of government? 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? Perhaps these questions do not need to be answered in an inaugural address. But they linger in the air, even as Bush's eloquence and idealism lifts you up and gives you hope.

Indeed, these questions do linger, but if the Bush administration follows its SOP (standard operating procedure), there will never be any direct, substantive answers. Instead, we will continue to get this "eloquent idealism."

The "be careful what you ask for" problem

Wright and Kessler stated this problem succinctly: "Autocratic rulers in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, moreover, would be likely to be replaced by opponents of U.S. policy if free and fair elections were held there today."

Todd Purdam expressed this problem in a question:

"When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

But stand how, and when, and where? When Mr. Bush warned that "the leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know to serve your people, you must learn to trust them," did he mean to endorse plebiscites in Saudi Arabia or Egypt that could produce anti-American governments?

Bush says he wants to establish democracy in the entire world, but a true democracy could very well result in a government "by the people and of the people" that is anti-American. Would that help protect this country? Would that fulfill what Bush his ownself has described as his morst solemn duty?

There are other aspects to this problem (and they are related to the Logistical Problem). Let's take a look at Iraq. The Shia are the majority in Iraq and were greatly repressed under Saddam. The Sunnis were the ruling group of Iraq all during Saddam's reign, meaning that any ties to Saddam are among the Sunnis, not the Shia, meaning that America surely does not want the Sunnis to be a significant part of a democratic Iraq. Generally speaking, if a straight-out democratic election was held in Iraq, the government would be run by the Shia. That's good, right? They are the ones who hated Saddam, right? Right, but they also have ties to the one government in the world that is also Shia--Iran. And we can't possibly have a democtratic country that could end up being an ally of part of the Axis of Evil. Moreover, if the Sunnis feel like they are being left out of the government, civil war could be on the horizon. And then there's the problem of Northern Iran, which is dominated by the Kurds. The Kurds want control of the vast oil reserves in the north, and there is still a desire for a separate nation among some Kurds.

What does all this mean? It means that Iraq is a mess, and a democratic election there (which is supposed to happen in one week) could establish a situation that is only slightly more stable than what exists now. Iraq is complex, and someone has to be there to help establish the democratic process--especially if we do not want Iraq to fall into civil war and anti-Americanism. And that "someone" is the U.S. So far, this process has taken over a year and a half, and it will not be over at the end of this month. The circumstances of different countries will be different and will require approaches suited to those unique circumstances. This will take a great deal of time, money, and other resources. Do we have the resources to spend? As everyone should have learned by now, the establishment of stability and new, democratic institutions is where the hardest work lies. We cannot just wave a magic wand and make democracy appear. So be careful what you ask for, George. Even if a democratic movement results in a government that is not anti-American, we likely will still have lots of work to do. And if Iraq is any accurate indication, there is no way we can realistically do that in multiple countries simultaneously.

The Pollyanna problem

"Pollyanna" is defined by Dictionary.com as "A person regarded as being foolishly or blindly optimistic." That would be one of the nicer ways for me to describe George W. Bush, and his Inaugural Address sure makes him look like a Pollyanna. For more of an explanation, I once again turn to Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal editorial.

The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."

It seemed a document produced by a White House on a mission. The United States, the speech said, has put the world on notice: Good governments that are just to their people are our friends, and those that are not are, essentially, not. We know the way: democracy. The president told every nondemocratic government in the world to shape up. "Success in our relations [with other governments] will require the decent treatment of their own people."

The speech did not deal with specifics--9/11, terrorism, particular alliances, Iraq. It was, instead, assertively abstract.

*******

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.

Noonan discussed some parts of the Address she considered to be very good, and then finished with this:

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.

Bush would do well to take heed of Noonan's words, but I have no reason to believe that he will. While "Pollyanna" is an accurate description, it is not comprehensive. While I find the Inaugural Address to be foolishly or blindly optimistic, I also find that it smacks of "Manifest Destiny" and "the White Man's Burden." Bush's "calling" as presented in his Inaugural Address is arrogant, myopically idealistic, and completely devoid of an explanation how it will be achieved. Then again, that's par for the course for the Bush administration.