Bloodless Coup

Bush's Inauguration Speech

I realize I'm late to this party, but I did want to get my comment out about Bush's Inauguration speech. What makes this so late is that, within 24 hours of the speech itself the White House was backing away from the sweeping claims made. I admit to being stumped by this. Bush had two and half months to write the thing, he knew it would be read and dissected by everyone (domestic and foreign). You can't just declare "we didn't really mean that." Like I said, very weird.

That being said, I'm going to assume that Pres. Bush really did mean what the speech said, and comment on it. Perhaps even more so than the State of the Union, the inauguration speech sets the tone for the term, and the ideas and ideals put forward need to be taken seriously.

The speech itself is reproduced in the indented paragraphs, with my comments. I am not convinced, or moved.

Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, members of the United States Congress, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

Maybe so, but actions (to my mind) speak louder than words, and the President’s actions have not done much in the way of “protecting and defending” the Constitution. Enshrined in the Constitution is the idea of checks and balances. This president (or his agents), however, has done everything he can to remove those checks against the executive branch and shift power away from the legislative and judicial. Remember Cheney's Energy Task Force? Torture memos? “Enemy Combatants”? Federal crackdown on Medical Marijuana and doctor assisted suicide? (A transfer of power from the states to the federal government.) I could go on, but the point is that President Bush has clearly sought ways to circumvent the Constitution. Being President means getting to exercise executive authority – it doesn’t mean you get to exercise supreme authority. There are co-equal branches of the government, and they get to tell you “no”.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use but by the history we have seen together. For a half a century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical. And then there came a day of fire.

We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder, violence will gather and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

Well, this sounds nice, but isn’t really accurate. The source of our vulnerability is regions that “simmer in resentment and tyranny” and are under the “reign of hatred and resentment”? Actually, the source of our vulnerability is that we really haven’t spent much money to defend our ports, chemical plants, railroads, interstates, etc. The source of the threat is non-state actors who happen to live in a region that is filled with tyranny (a great deal of which we aided and abetted during the cold war). By the way, there are other regions in the world filled with “resentment”. Are we threatened by them, too?

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.

Well, honestly, no. I really don’t think that all of those Islamic Fundamentalists are genuinely a threat to the survival of this country. I’ll easily grant that they can do damage to us and our interests, but I defy anyone to come up with an even implausible scenario that sees our country collapse and end as a result of their actions. Additionally, I find it interesting that a President that calls Putin a friend, who goes out of his way to help the Saudis, and turns the other cheek to Pakistan's Wal-Mart approach to nuclear secrets wants to expand freedom everywhere. If this is true, can we expect to see a revision of long-standing American (both Democratic and Republican) policies?

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.

True, but we make clear exceptions. Can the Kurds go and exercise the rights of self-determination? The Palestinians? The Sunnis in Iraq? What about the rights of self-determination of the people in Pakistan (dictator), Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (theocracies both), and Russia (used to be a democracy, now isn't really)? For over half a century we made exceptions to these ideals: it was called self-interest. We didn't pick a fight with big countries over how they treated their citizens because we didn't really want to go to war with the USSR or the PRC (China) to free those people. We enjoyed our rich lifestyle too much. Now, the world is safer. We could pick fights with those countries (or others), though it would cost us. Is Bush really saying that the US is going to rid itself of the exceptions, and have a genuinely moral foreign policy? The last President to attempt this was Jimmy Carter, who is generally vilified by the entire Republican party. Is that what Bush wants to return to?

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.

See, there is no exception here. "...in every nation and culture..." That doesn't leave much wiggle room. It's a laudable moral goal (no one could deny that, and it does hearken back to the ideals of the founding generation), but is it really practical, or even beneficial? For example, would a democratic Saudi Arabia really continue to sell us the oil we need? Would it really benefit us if Egypt democratically decided not to let us use the Suez canal anymore (or Panama the Panama canal)? See, I'm all for morality, and I'm fine with Bush painting broad strokes here (no details, did you notice: how are we going to accomplish this?), but I'm also self-interested enough not to necessarily want to give up the things I enjoy (light, heat, food) in order to bring democracy (which might not like me or my ideals) to the rest of the world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. 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.

It's kind of him to recognize that other state's choices of governments and laws might be different from ours. What if the way they choose rejects our ideals and values?

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. 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.

OK, where? How? One can argue that we have freed the Iraqis (though they aren't really free yet, and it may be awhile). However, other than that, what else have we done? Afghanistan? They more or less attacked us, so freedom wasn't the main motivating force there. Ukraine? Yeah, Bush should get some kudos for that one: we took the moral high-ground (in the face of Putin's clear preference the other way) and stuck with it. But where else? We trashed a democracy in Venezuela (encouraged a coup). We wink at Musharif's obvious attempts to avoid anything democratic in Pakistan. And while we sometime condemn Putin's anti-democratic maneuverings in Russia, we don't seem to have actually used any of that "considerable" influence to try to push him the other direction (or if we have, I haven't seen it, and it hasn't done any good). I guess what I'm saying is that our past track record (not just Bush, but over the past half a dozen Presidents) hasn't really let the world know we're a beacon for democracy and self-determination in the world. I'm not sure they are going to believe us now.

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

By the way, this paragraph is a tough segue. It just doesn't flow with the previous one.

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.

He's doing that "every" thing again: no exceptions.

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.

If he is going to repeat himself, I can too. This is all very moral and good, but this does clearly mean that most of our allies in the entire Middle East shouldn't be. Is that really what we want? And by the way, how in the hell does this help us fight Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? They aren't states, we don't have relations with them, and to fight them effectively requires the assistance of states that really are quite nasty. Which comes first, freedom or terrorism?

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.

OK, this is clearly ironic. This man just finished a campaign where there was no "free dissent" at any of his public speaking stops, and there were all sorts of stories before the inauguration about the banning of signs and demonstrations near the festivities. I'm not sure that Bush has seen "free dissent" in four years. I'm supposed to believe he wants it?

Some I know have questioned the global appeal of liberty, though this time in history -- four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen -- is an odd time for doubt.

Well, I don't doubt that liberty isn't appealing, I just worry that some people, once "liberated" will choose to reject the ideals and values that we find in liberty (which, if I'm not mistaken, Bush said was OK a half a dozen paragraphs before). And if they do that, will we allow it? And, by the way, liberty may have advanced swiftly in the past four decade, but (historically) liberty has retreated as well. Spain got back a dictator after democracy (Franco), as did France (Napoleon), Russia (Lenin), China (Mao), and others. The fact that there are more people free today doesn't mean that they can't stop being free later (see: Putin, Vladimir)

Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

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."

Again, very moral and "good". I can't complain about that. But are we really going to start helping Chinese pro-democracy dissidents? How? Arms? Money? US Passports (if they are US citizens, China couldn't arrest and jail them as easily)? Bluntly, are we willing to destabilize relatively stable and helpful relationships with powerful and important states (China, Russia, Pakistan, etc.) in the name of trying to make them free?

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.

And all the allies of the United States can know we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies defeat.

See, I know this is a crock. We may honor the friendship of our allies, but we certainly haven't relied on their counsel. In fact, we've annoyed more of our democratic (European) friends than our dictatorial (Middle Eastern) friends. So to tell other democratic states that we like their advice (which they know is a lie), and then to turn around and admonish them that they shouldn't foment "divisions" among free states (when Bush, just a half a dozen paragraphs ago, was in favor of free dissent) is about the height of hypocricy. And makes the high moral tone of this whole address somewhat suspect.

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens. From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet, because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well as a fire in the minds of men. 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 our world.

I think this is a long-winded way of saying "I made a mess in Iraq, thank you for letting me try to fix it."

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause -- in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy, the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments, the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies.

Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives, and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

I can't be snarky about this. I can't think of anything more disheartening than fighting and dying in a war of such clear ambiguity (getting rid of Saddam - good; creating a civil war and pissing off the rest of the world - bad). It is very honorable for people to carry out orders and go into danger when they must know that there is every chance it won't work out well in the end (see: Vietnam). In some sense, fighting World War II is easy (Hitler, Auschwitz - what's debatable?). It's the small, dirty, confusing wars that are difficult.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself, and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country but to its character.

See, I think I might just disagree. Bush is encouraging the younger generation to go give of their time and energy (public service, the military, AmeriCorps, something). That's all well and good. But can't one argue that a legitimate idealism is in opposing the things that Bush has done? Fighting (metaphorically) for the environment, a sane education policy, a coherent foreign policy, the wise use of force or just raising the level of intelligent discourse so that this democracy works better (owww - I just wrenched my shoulder patting myself on my back). How about a bunch of idealists joining the Republican Party and dragging it kicking and screaming back to the ideals and policies it had before this President came along? Public service isn't just about joining some form of the government, but about taking action that benefits the country as a whole, not just yourself.

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home -- the unfinished work of American freedom.

In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time.

This is, genuinely, insane. Economic independence, by definition, provides no security against "laboring on the edge of subsistence." That's the whole point of having taxes and things - to reduce economic independence and allow the society as a whole to have security from falling over the edge. And no definition of "economic independence" motivated any of those acts of legislation he cites. Each of those was about less independence in the name of greater societal benefits (the Homestead act gave away government land to create a population where their wasn't one; the GI Bill used taxpayer dollars to send soldiers to school to create a more wealthy middle class; and Social Security transferred wealth from productive people to unproductive ones in the name of rewarding them for their age).

To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society.

Nothing wrong with this, if this is what the (democratic) country wants. Just remember: free means free to succeed, and free to fail. Once you own something, you are responsible for its success or failure. There is nothing wrong with that kind of free-enterprise system, but let's be clear that there it can go wrong.

By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.

No, this is wrong. Changing the economic basis of the society may or may not make the society more prosperous (depends on what the new "owners" do with what they now own), but I don't think it will do anything for just or equal. How could it? It's an economic system. Just actions by individuals within the system can reduce injustice and inequality, but the system can't. In fact, one needs to have laws to enforce equality, else the economic system might just create inequality (feudalism? plantation farming?). In any event, whatever the "ownership society" will do, it will clearly increase fear. Removing government safety nets (whatever economic or moral good it might do, and we can debate that) will increase the fear people have about the economic well-being. Without those safety nets, they know that the loss of a job, injury or just bad luck could drive them out into the street. Its in the definition.

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character, on integrity and tolerance toward others and the rule of conscience in our own lives.

Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.

There is nothing wrong with good character, and clearly the more freedom a society has (economic, legal, etc.), the greater the "character" of individuals matters. After all, without a government to create laws and norms, you depend on the actions of individuals to be "good" and "just". Great. For the record, however, Bush is clearly showing his ignorance of the Renaissance and the great philosophers that were the real Founding Fathers of America: Locke, Hume, Rousseau, etc. The "ideals of justice" may have been written about long after Christianity, Judaism and Islam came around, but those "ideals" were not discovered. The Renaissance philosophers argued that all men (today, we'd include women - they were sexist back then) are equal and can be rationally shown to be. That everyone possesses rights that cannot be taken from them, no matter what religion pops up or moves in. It's this insight - removing the rights of man from a religious basis - that creates the foundations for the diverse society that can function as a democracy. Bush would do well to remember that.

(For the record, Bush's whole passage comes close to why I'm not a libertarian any more. I used to be a fairly strong one a few years back. But I no longer believe that people's "character", when removed from government imposed restrictions, will be thoughtful or benign. In other words, the more freedom you give people, the more they will be nasty and brutish (to quote Hobbes). Given sufficient "character", a libertarian society would be great. But Marx and Lenin made assumptions about "character" as well, and look where that got them. But I digress.)

In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth.

Fine. More Christian imagrey. However, if "liberty...does not mean independence", why is Bush arguing for a more independent basis for economic exchange?

And our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue for racism.

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

Back to freedom, huh. OK. A generation is a big thing. I'm not sure where one starts and one begins. So I'm not sure its up to Bush to do the work of a generation all in a few years. That being said, advancing freedom is great (back to a moral foreign policy). And from where I sit, the character that is being used to advance freedom (if that's what the Iraq adventure is being called) is clearly wanting. Our government disdains the opinions of the rest of the world, is angry that they won't help us, is upset that some in Iraq don't want our "liberty", makes those who disagree with the conduct of the war feel unpatriotic in expressing their dissent, debates seriously how far one can go in extracting information from people before it is called "torture", writes position papers that argue that the president has no check or balance upon him during wartime (though this one is not declared), and generally refuses to acknowledge real facts on the ground in making policy choices (yeah, I remember that "reality-based" quote still). That is not, for all the religious trappings of all the public speeches, character.

These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom.

We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes. And I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.

For the record (and I realize I'm farting into a hurricane, here), they didn't attack our "freedom": they attacked us because our policies harmed their attempts to impose their way of life on the rest of the Middle East. Saying they "hate freedom" damages the public debate about this, and harms our ability to find good policies to remove the threat of terrorism. It lowers the debate, and isn't worthy of our President.

We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul.

Poetic. A genuinely nice paragraph.

When our founders declared a new order of the ages, when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty, when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now," they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled.

History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the author of liberty.

I like the historical stuff better than the religious notes. As noted, liberty has waxed and waned in historical context. This stuff is a little Fukuyamaesque, but I'm sure his speechwriter has read that stuff.

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.

May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America

Nice ending. I guess, by the way, that "liberty to all the inhabitants" doesn't include the freedom for same-sex couples to marry? And while "tested but not weary" sounds nice, what does it mean? Is this a dig at Vietnam - we got out because we were "weary"? In crass political terms, I think it means "I'm still going through with this."

In any event, as a whole, the speech is clearly more foreign than domestic. It speaks to great changes internationally, and only hints are changes domestically. However, those changes are fundamental. Bush is claiming to bring a moral basis back to our foreign policy: other states will be taken to task for denying their citizens liberty. Honestly, how is that different from Carter (30 years ago)? I'm serious. Carter was ridiculed for trying to be a good person when our policies needed "toughness" (read: bang on the Soviets). If his was a disaster then, why is Bush that much better today? Sure, no Soviet Union, but can we really afford this kind of reach (far, far greater than any previous American foreign policy)? The answer might very well be "yes" (I'm an idealist, I can accept a moral basis for our foreign policy, though I'd want to debate it). However, the devil is in the details and the actual policy changes. Given the retractions/retreats cited at the beginning that began within 24 hours of this inaugural address, its hard to take any of this seriously. And if nothing is going to change, it will be a long and lonely four years.

Posted by baltar at January 25, 2005 08:12 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics