Freedom

The new F word?

by Heidi Parent
02/01/05

Who would have thought that 2,086 words could cause so much controversy and confusion? But the President's inaugural address has. My thoughts on the speech have not changed from the moment I heard it. I found it to be a lofty speech that laid out beautifully the President's vision for promoting freedom and liberty around the globe. Here are a few lines that best encapsulate the speech's central theme:

"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 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."

"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 - 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."

In total, the President used the word "freedom" 27 times and "liberty" 15 times. Even to the casual listener, the gist of the speech was easy to ascertain.

But all this talk of spreading freedom and liberty is exactly what others found to be wrong with the speech. The critics fear what they say is the jingoistic tone of the speech. Chris Matthews said, "If you just read [the President's] speech, you might be petrified by it. It is a frightening claim of American moral authority over the world. It is a powerful statement of mission, an almost open-ended commitment to bring down tyranny in the world, to pay the price."

Fully aware that we live in a world that includes both good and evil, I agree that we will never end tyranny. However, just because we will never end all tyranny, does that mean we shouldn't try to end any tyranny? The President agrees and admitted as much in his speech, "The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it." The truth is, the President has the courage to look at the big picture and envision great things, but at the same time he understands what is possible. Michael Gerson, the President's head speechwriter, put it this way, "His goals are deeply idealistic. His methods are deeply realistic."

A big question I have for these critics is: why the shock? Promoting freedom and liberty is nothing new for President Bush. He's spoken of America's role in spreading freedom many times throughout his first term. And for goodness sake, what do you think Iraq is all about?Moreover, he isn't the first president to utter the F word. Take this quote: "Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause. No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom." Who said it? It wasn't George W. Bush; it was John F. Kennedy. Then there's: "It is up to us...to work together for progress and humanity so that our grandchildren, when they look back at us, can truly say that we not only preserved the flame of freedom, but cast its warmth and light further than those who came before us." That quote is just one of thousands from Ronald Reagan on the subject. So why is the word suddenly so taboo?

For them, I guess it's twofold. First, who are we to impose our will on other nations, they ask. This, of course, misses the President's point entirely. We have no intention of making every nation on earth mini-American democracies. The President said as much in his address, "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." Meaning, we don't intend to remake every country in our image, but we will stand by those who yearn to be free and do what we can to help them become so. Which bring us to the issue of Iraq. The ramifications of a democracy in the Middle East could be incalculable. Does that mean Iraq must be an American style democracy? Of course not. A democracy of any kind flourishing amid repressive regimes will give those living under that repression hope; inspiring them to say, "Hey, us too!"

Secondly, many critics fear what they claim to be the President's hidden message, his real message. To them this speech indicates the President is secretly planning another invasion and in no time the tanks will be rolling on Iran, Syria, and North Korea. In other words, because we invaded Iraq to force regime change, it must also be the plan elsewhere. But is this paranoia justified? Let's answer the question this way: If we've learned anything about President Bush in the last four years it's that he says what he means. So taken at his word, the President means - simply - that we will hold governments accountable and demand better treatment of their citizens.

Success in Iraq and Afghanistan will undoubtedly help prove we mean business, but an invasion is not always necessary. But given their paranoia on this subject, look for critics to try to get the President to promise no further invasions, which would be a mistake of the highest proportions (one I'm certain the President won't make). We may not have any intention of using military force elsewhere, but we'd be foolish to admit that publicly. If we're trying to get other governments to shape up, they may be a little more willing to comply knowing that we've used force in the past and are willing to use it again. But if we admit that we have no intention of using force in the future, these governments can laugh off any American pressure as nothing more than empty threats. And they would be right. This is what the Taliban did. After years of empty threats, they gambled that America wouldn't use substantial military force. But George W. Bush changed their attitude and, one would suppose, the attitude of many others when he sent troops in to topple the Taliban and liberate Afghanistan.

His words also mean that we will stand by those now living in oppression who are dreaming of freedom (like the students in Iran who are pressuring the government for democratic reform) just as we stood by the people living behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.

I envision the President's speech inspiring those who dream of freedom, just as Ronald Reagan's speeches inspired those living under communist rule. After many of Reagan's speeches, political prisoners in the Soviet gulag would pass along Reagan's words by quietly talking to each other though toilets or tapping them in code to prisoners in other cells. Jailed Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky, said that Reagan's words energized and emboldened them. His words gave them hope. If President Bush's words can do the same today, how is that a bad thing? If he intends to stand by those who live in tyranny, I fail to see the harm in letting them -and their oppressors - know it.

In fact, all this panic over President Bush's "real" meaning reminds me of the hand wringing that took place during President Reagan's administration. He too, the liberals claimed, was going to bring an end to the world because of the tough rhetoric he used against the Soviets. Well, we all know who was proven correct in the end. And if, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a single shot, isn't it possible that President Bush can have the same effect?

The fact is President Bush is someone who sees the big picture and is able to recognize changes that need to be made. More importantly, he isn't afraid to boldly proclaim them or nudge the reluctant toward his goal. And that's what his inaugural speech did - it laid out a simple, clear vision: making the world more free will help keep us safe here at home. Is the vision tremendously ambitious? You bet it is. But is it wrong? I don't see how. A lofty goal proclaimed by a visionary leader can be a wonderful thing. But it can become reality when backed by a strong leader intent on standing firm and seeing it through.