An update on "America's calling"

Overview

I said in I can't keep up... that "I came across a post by Kevin Drum of Political Animal that basically said that White House aides and Bush's father said that ol' George's speech did not really mean what it so forcefully said[.]" I had planned on writing a post on this topic tomorrow, and then ol' George has a press conference this morning (which is ongoing as I am writing at 9:20 a.m.) in which he is attempting to clarify just what he meant in his Inaugural Address. That means that I need to write about the previous explanatory comments of the White House aides and George's daddy now so I do not fall too far behind.

I am basing this post on two articles from the Washington Post. The first article is "Bush Speech Not a Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say," by Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei. The lead paragraph says

White House officials said yesterday that President Bush's soaring inaugural address, in which he declared the goal of ending tyranny around the world, represents no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy but instead was meant as a crystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere.

If that is truly the case, then why did the speech not even once mention Iraq or Afghanistan? Still, this excerpt contains no quotes from White House officials and could thus merely reflect the views of the reporters. Then again, maybe not...

Dan Bartlett

• Quote #1: Policy implications and values beyond debate
  

The first quote in the article is from White House counsel Dan Bartlett (he was formerly White House communications director, meaning he was the ringleader of the "White House media magicians" described here):

It has its own policy implications, but it is not to say we're not doing this already. It is important to crystallize the debate to say this is what it is all about, to say what are our ideals, what are the values we cherish."

Let's look at the second sentence first. What debate is Bartlett talking about? The values and ideals mentioned in the speech are freedom, liberty, and democracy. I do not think there is any debate in this country as to whether we cherish those principles. Now let's look at the first sentence. At once it grossly understates the bloody obvious and fails to crystallize anything. The speech has policy implications? Well, no shit, Dan. Here are some sources of these implications from the speech:

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.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. 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.

*******

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.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

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.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

*******

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.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

*******

When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. 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.

To be fair, I have not included excerpts that appear to add caveats and qualifiers to the speech. I will address those later. However, I will say now that none of those "nuances" change the fact that the above excerpts do not limit in any way the scope and sweep of this "calling." As stated in this Inaugural Address, Bush's policy--and, according to him, America's policy--is as follows:

• We will bring freedom and liberty to every man and woman in the world.
• We will try to develop democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.
• We will stand with every oppressed person and not excuse any oppressor.
• We will seek end tyranny in the entire world.
• And lastly, all of this must be done in order for liberty in the U.S. to survive and to protect our country from attack.

You damn skippy that has policy implications. There are no limiting factors present, and, as will be shown, any limitations expressed in the speech do not alter the policy points set out above.

So much for policy implications. Let's look at the second phrase in Bartlett's first sentence: "but it is not to say we're not doing this already." First of all, smooth choice of wording. Using "not" twice in the same clause makes for crystal clear communication. Speaking of implications, this clause certain implies that we are in fact "doing this already." And that leads me to ask "Where?" In China and Russia? I repeat an excerpt from the Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler article I quoted in America's new calling:

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.

"Au contaire," say White House representatives. Wait...that's French, so White House aides would not say that..."On the contrary," say White House representatives. From the Doyle McManus article quoted in America's new calling:

But Bush aides argue that the administration has challenged China and Russia publicly on their human rights records.

Vice President Dick Cheney politely admonished China's leaders during a speech in Shanghai last year, saying: Freedom "is something that successful societies, and wise leaders, have learned to embrace rather than to fear."

And last month, Bush publicly criticized Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, whom he once hailed as a personal friend, for Putin's attempt to intervene in the election in neighboring Ukraine.

You're kidding me, right? This is not my idea of "standing with" oppressed people, nor does it constitute "not excusing" oppressive rulers. This hardly rises even to the level of a slap on the wrist. So, "we are not not doing this already" in Russia and China, so how about Pakistan? According to Wright and Kessler,

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a bloodless coup, reneged last month on a promise to give up his title as army chief of staff, eliciting little protest from the administration. At her hearings, Rice said she felt that Pakistan has "come a long way" in recent years because Musharraf broke ties with the Taliban, which had ruled Afghanistan, and assisted in fighting al Qaeda.

Let me see if I understand...Pakistan has "come a long way" in part because its military dictator ended relations with a group that ruled a different country? I'm confused. What does that have to do with how Pakistan is governed and hows its citizens are treated? Moreover, what does assisting in the fight against Al Qaeda have to do with how Pakistan is governed? Moving right along, let's take a look at Uzbekistan. From Wright and Kessler:

The State Department, in its annual human rights report, has cited Uzbekistan for its "very poor" human rights record, including the torture and killing of citizens in custody for political reasons. There is virtually no freedom of speech or of the press.

Yet Bush met with Uzbekistan's president in 2002 and signed a declaration of "strategic partnership," and senior officials such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have visited the country. The United States "values Uzbekistan as a stable, moderate force in a turbulent region," the State Department said late last year.

So what is a "strategic partnership"? McManus provides an answer--and some more information:

As for Uzbekistan, an authoritarian state that has granted the U.S. military basing rights, the administration has been divided. The State Department has condemned the regime as repressive and blocked some U.S. aid; the Pentagon has praised the regime and sought to unblock the money.

Rice was not asked about Uzbekistan at her confirmation hearings this week, but the Central Asian country was not on the list of six "outposts of tyranny" that she said deserved special attention: Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe.

We have the ability to put military bases in Uzbekistan. Is there anybody out there that sincerely thinks we are going to risk that asset by taking Uzbekistan to task? If we were, wouldn't it have made sense for Rice to include as part of her "outposts of tyranny" a country that has no freedom of speech and tortures and kills political dissidents? Freedom is on the march, baby!

And there are Afghanistan and Iraq. It is true that progress has been made toward democracy in both places, but for the moment keep this in mind: in both instances that progress came about only because of military action by this country. Moreover, in Afghanistan, the Taliban started making a comeback and the old warlord system is still in place to a great degree, meaning that the central government is not fully in control of the country.

Here's the point: Bartlett's implication that the U.S. is already doing the things Bush spoke of in his Inaugural Address is dubious at best. As a result, a strong argument can be made that the speech does signal a shift in U.S. foreign policy.

• Quote #2: Anchors aweigh!
  

Balz and VandeHei note that Bartlett said that the State of the Union Address will offer more details on how this "calling" is to be achieved. As for the Inaugural Address, Bartlett described it as

a speech that required us to cast out into the future a beacon that we will strive to meet...It is a goal that is critically important, one that doesn't come to fruition overnight. It will move at different speeds and different paces in different countries. But he felt it was important to cast an anchor out into the future[.]

"Cast an achor out into the future?" What the hell does that mean? Once again, I am confused. Bartlett speaks of a process that moves. An anchor, on the other hand, is expressly designed to impede or prevent movement.

Michael J. Gerson

Gerson is Bush's chief speech writer, and that means he basically wrote the Inaugural Address.

• Quote #1: Nuance...really?
  

Gerson told the Washington Post that "The speech was carefully and purposely nuanced." Wow! Apparently it was so nuanced that most of the world did not notice. And that includes former Reagan speechwriter and ardent Bush supporter Peggy Noonan (who I quoted at length in America's new calling). In an editorial for the Wall Street Journal, Noonan mentions a difference between foreign policy idealists and realists, and then says

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.

(emphasis added). That should disprove any notion that the claim of no nuance is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Moreover, note that in America's new calling I quoted Noonan as saying that the ending of the speech was "over the top."

Still, I have to concede that the speech did contain some qualifiers and caveats that might be considered "nuance."

Right after Bush said “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,” he said the following:

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary.

At first blush, this seems to negate any notion that Bush will be militaristic in pursuing our new calling. However, please note that this is the only sentence in the entire speech that says military force is not the primary means of "ending tyranny in our world." Next, look at the last half of the sentence. Bush said that we will use force to defend ourselves. Now, recall that part of the policy announced by Bush is that freeing the entire world in order for liberty in the U.S. to survive and to protect our country from attack. So, the "nuance" could be that Bush could decide that freedom can march only when pushed by military action. And finally, remember 1) Bartlett's implication that the U.S. is already doing things to achieve the calling, 2) the only places where we are having anything approaching success are Afghanistan and Iraq, 3) in both places, democracy had to be preceded by military invasion, and 4) we still have military forces in both places.

The next "nuance" came in the same paragraph of the speech:

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.

This sounds pretty good. It indicates that Bush will allow countries to truly choose their own path. Then again--like with the single mention of arms not being the primary means--this is the only place in the speech where Bush expresses this concept. On the other hand, Bush followed the above statements with the following:

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.

*******

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed.

*******

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

I interpret this "nuance" to mean that countries are free to choose their own path and institutions, but those choices better not be different from ours; otherwise we will not have "success" in our relations. We will walk at the side of countries choosing the American way, and those that do not will have the choice "clarified" for them. It will not be enough that people in a country are treated decently. That treatment has to be the product of democratic movements. Is this the conclusive meaning of all these statements? Perhaps not, but that is not the point. The point is twofold: 1) this is a reasonable interpretation, and 2) because of that, this second "nuance" is lacking in nuance.

• Quote #2: Idealistic AND realistic
  

Balz and VandeHei write that "Bush's speech appeared to put the United States on a course in which moralism and idealism, rather than realpolitik, form the philosophical foundations of foreign policy. But White House officials said that is a misreading of how Bush operates." And then there is this quote from Gerson:

His goals are deeply idealistic. His methods are deeply realistic. In fact, that was one of the themes of the speech, that this traditional divide between realism and idealism is no longer adequate for the conduct of American foreign policy.

Methods? What methods? As is blatantly obvious on the surface of the text of the speech, Bush said nothing about methods. He said nothing about how his great calling will be accomplished. The whole speech has an idealism quotient exceeding a first-place winner in an Optimist Club "America is great because..." speech contest. As for the theme Gerson noted, I missed that. I said in America's new calling that the theme of the speech was "freedom and liberty," and that "freedom" was used 27 times and "liberty" 15. I went back and did a word count on some other words. "Ideals" was used 3 times. "Idealism" was used 2 times. "Idealistic" was used 1 time. "Realistic," "realism," and "reality" were used 0 times, as in never. Also, there was no direct expression of a divide between realism and idealism. How could I have missed this theme? I guess maybe there was some nuance after all.

• Quote #3: A generational struggle

Gerson also said that the speech addressed "a generational struggle. It's not the work of a year or two." So what? That does not change the fact that no American President since Woodrow Wilson has put forth anything like Bush's "calling." That means that the Inaugural Address--by its plain language--is a shift in American foreign policy. Furthermore, even if this is a generational struggle--meaning that the effort will continue long after Bush leaves office--the facts remain that Bush will oversee the first four years of the struggle and what he does will necessarily define what has to be done after he leaves. In other words, if he screws it up, it will become a huge struggle that someone else will have to clean up.

An unnamed senior administration official

Balz and VandeHei qoute an anonymous senior administration official at length. The official wanted to remain unnamed "because he wanted the focus to remain on the president's words and not his."

• Quote #1: There's nothing new here

According to this official, the speech "is not a discontinuity. It is not a right turn." As I said, this is the first time since Wilson that a President has announced a similar policy, which means that for well over a half a century there has been no such bold policy to free the entire world, which further means that Bush's new policy is a discontinuity. As for the speech not being a right turn, I am not so sure, but I am pretty certain that it is not a left turn, and it damn sure is not staying in the center.

• Quote #2: What Bartlett said

The senior official also said that the speech is nothing more than a "message we have been sending" for some time. Go back and read the analysis for Bartlett's Quote #1.

• Quote #3: Successful relationships

This quote, or group of related statements, deals with the second nuance I discussed under Gerson Quote #1. That nuance dealt with the possibility that Bush would allow countries to choose their own path and institutions.

Balz and VandeHei write that

The senior administration official pointed to Russia and China as countries that have a "successful relationship" with the United States. But he said Russia and China would need to embrace "a common set of values and principles" to have "a relationship that broadens and deepens."

Just what is this common set of values? And how does our relationship with Russia and China broaden and deepen? There is certainly the possibility that increased "success" in those relationships will come about only if Russia and China do what we want them to do. The senior official then gave this insight into how the new policy could affect Russia:

He said that if Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to take steps to restrict democracy, it will "have a consequence on our relations," adding that "it will depend on some sense whether he has heard the message and acted on it, or doesn't."

Somebody please explain how this does not translate to "do what we want or there will be adverse consequences." What if Putin somehow in the near future further restricts democracy but revives the Russian economy and makes life better for all Russians? What will Bush do then?

And lastly, the senior official "said that administration concerns might not be voiced publicly, but through private channels." And Condi Rice will then dress up as Glenda the Good Witch, wave her magic wand, and Putin will become Mr. Rogers. Then again, maybe that will not be necessary, for, after all, ol' George has seen Vladimir's soul. Listen up, folks. Voicing concerns to Putin through private channels ain't gonna do shit. Putin was a major player in the Soviet system (former head of the KGB), and history shows that anyone who survived in that system is one smart, tough sumbitch (that's Texan for SOB). Putin does not have ice water in his veins--he has liquid nitrogen. The chances of anyone forcing him to do anything are near non-existent, and a gnat flying around his head will concern him more than a private voicing of concerns. Want some proof? Look at Chechnya. Putin has been ruthless in dealing with rebels there. The Bush administration has expressed some concern, but not much, and Putin has ignored it. See, we are in no position to complain because of our "war on terror." Putin has said that the rebels are terrorists and include Al Qaeda members, and if the U.S. takes the position that it can undertake drastic means to combat terrorism, then so can he. It is rather hard to argue with Putin's logic, and no amount of "private voicing of concerns" is going to persuade him to change his approach.

This senior administration official is trying to say that the Inaugural Address is not really a big deal because its goals can and will be met with personal diplomacy and persuasion. That is not mentioned anywhere in the speech, and, furthermore, it is a dangerously incorrect assertion.

Papa Bush

VandeHei had a follow-up article on January 23 entitled "Bush's Father Warns Against Extrapolating From Speech." Here's what Daddy said about the speech:

"People want to read a lot into it -- that this means new aggression or newly asserted military forces," former president George H.W. Bush said. "That's not what that speech is about. It's about freedom."

*******

People "certainly ought to not read into [the speech] any arrogance on the part of the United States," the former president said during an impromptu visit to the White House briefing room.

To the contrary, I believe many do NOT want to read into the speech a meaning of new aggression. They want the meaning to be just the opposite. However, it is damn near impossible not to see that meaning. And while the elder Bush thinks people should not see arrogance in the speech, it oozes arrogance. With all the talk of God, America's calling to free every man and woman on earth, America's freedom depending on ending tyranny in the world, etc., there is arrogance throughout the speech. In I can't keep up..., I mentioned a article by Fareed Zakaria. This excerpt describes why most of the world sees Bush and his foreign policy as arrogant:

I often argue with an Indian businessman friend of mine that America is unfairly singled out for scrutiny abroad. “Why didn’t anyone criticize the French or Chinese for their meager response to the tsunami?” I asked him recently. His response was simple. “America positions itself as the moral arbiter of the world, it pronounces on the virtues of all other regimes, it tells the rest of the world whether they are good or evil,” he said. “No one else does that. America singles itself out.

Read the entire Inaugural Address for yourself. Then ask yourself how it does not send the very message mentioned by Zakaria's friend. To me, it clearly does send that message, and there is nothing in the speech--no nuance, if you will--that softens that message.

Conclusion

The Inaugural Address is bold and uncompromising. As I attempted to show in America's new calling, the speech sets a standard that cannot be met and thus sets the stage for abject hypocrisy by our nation. I think that is why White House officials and the Bush the Elder tried to tell us that the speech really did not mean what it so forcefully said. I believe that those efforts are in vain. Assuming that I wrong, then Kevin Drum's comments are highly relevant:

Even accepting that rhetorical BS is a politician's stock in trade, this is inexplicable. What's the point in giving a speech like this if you're going to spend the next week telling everyone to ignore it? This is political buffoonery of a high degree.

Indeed.