(In his second Inaugural address, President George W. Bush used the word "freedom" 27 times and "liberty" 15 times over the course of the 17-minute speech. This amounts to the appearance of either word about 2.5 times per minute. I was there. I saw it.)
Hi. My name is Paul. I am a registered Democrat and I enjoyed President Bush's second Inaugural address. I mean, how could you not? First of all, as far as I am concerned, Inauguration Day is a day to rejoice another peaceful transfer of power, when appropriate, and/or the stable continuation of our democratic government. It is a day to celebrate the office and the institution, whether or not you agree with the politics of the man who occupies it. The words he spoke were quite inspiring as well. The idea that human liberty trumps all other concepts as the driving force of international relations is a righteous and powerful one.
The question essentially becomes one of how we will enforce such a revolutionary idea across the globe in an effort to protect our American way of life while not imposing on that of other cultures. Based solely on my observation of its past performance, something tells me that this administration will tend to err more toward the latter (you know, the whole imposing on other cultures thing) in the next four years.
Bush is right, though. The perseverance of our liberty here at home is highly dependent upon the treatment of tyranny and destitution abroad. Sept. 11, 2001, or "the day of fire," as Georgie likes to call it, served as a stark reminder of our interconnectedness and responsibility to one another.
It seems like a question of timing to me, though. According to the Bush administration, with or without that whole WMD rubbish, the timing was right to topple Saddam. The innocent Iraqis are now free to die in a multitude of horrific ways (car bomb, mine, grenade attack, rocket attack, M-16 fire, etc.) by a virtual menagerie of characters (Shiite militants, Sunni rebels, foreign insurgents, American commandos, Iraqi police officers, etc.) rather than being knocked off by only Saddam's regime. Who says the Bush administration isn't pro-choice? Not to mention the fact that they can do all of this while on the way to the "polling place" (read: death trap) to vote for candidates whose identities are kept secret for safety reasons.
Yes, I understand that progress is a process. I realize that transforming Iraq will take considerable amounts of time, patience and energy. I am well aware that a brutal dictator has been removed, will face justice and can no longer terrorize his people. Great. But what I wondered during the inauguration speech and continue to wonder today is this: If human liberty is the pinnacle of human causes, are people free enough to decide, collectively, that they desire something other than democracy? In other words, our Founding Fathers stood up and decided they wanted to kick some British behind in an effort to free themselves and the colonists from tyranny. Facing the greatest military force in the history of the world, they fought for their freedom and won. They then instituted a democratic form of government that has persisted to this very day.
Now no amount of conservative spin can convince me that the Iraqi Republican Guard was in any way comparable in might to the British fleet and/or the Redcoats who scoured the colonies. But with our modern-day version of freedom and human liberty, the American administration decided that the Iraqis were fed up and had had enough. So we did the dirty deed for them, whether they truly desired it or not, and now we are praying that a few Madisons, Jeffersons and Franklins got elected on Jan. 30. This isn't to say that the American story is the model for revolution against tyranny around the globe, but it is a perfect example of a people taking the power into their own hands and deciding their own fate. If that is not true human liberty, then the president and the American people need to sit down and have a discussion about semantics.
Sadly, this is not what has occurred in Iraq. We invaded, told the people to keep quiet and out of our way, removed the regime, and insisted on semi-democratic elections regardless of the danger imposed on or wishes of the people. Someone PLEASE show me the element of self-governance involved here!
After struggling with the president's definition of human liberty/freedom, I decided to put his words and actions to the FDR test. Being one of the foremost pioneers of human rights and the development of self-reliance, the former president, I figured, might be a good educator for later presidents on the meaning of freedom. In his famous Four Freedoms address, FDR brilliantly summed up the concept of human freedom by saying, "We look forward to a world founded upon four essential freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression everywhere in the world. The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his or her own way - everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want ... everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear ... anywhere in the world."
In honor of the president's zeal for testing and standards in our public schools, here is my report card on the administration's "freedom performance" in Iraq thus far:
-Freedom of expression: D- (the country is under foreign occupation, come on people)
-Freedom of worship: B (no egregious violations to my knowledge, still under occupation by a secular/predominantly Christian power)
-Freedom from want: F (we blew up their country)
-Freedom from fear: F- (we are still blowing up their country)
And finally, an ungraded report card on how the administration ranks on freedom on its own soil:
-Freedom of expression: (PATRIOT Act infringements, intolerance of homosexuals)
-Freedom of worship: (religious intolerance of non-Christians)
-Freedom from want: (too many poor, undereducated people without basic needs for the wealthiest nation on the planet)
-Freedom from fear: (Americans more fearful than ever before ... of everything from losing their jobs to losing their lives in a terrorist attacks. Anyone know the threat color level today?)
How would you grade the administration's performance in America? As far as I can see, Professor Roosevelt needs to increase the level of testing because his pupil just isn't getting the picture.
