PRESTOPUNDIT

THERE IS a terrific conversation on the meaning of Bush's Inaugural Address among the members of CONSERVATIVENET -- the email list for conservative scholars. Here's a taste:

from Alonzo Hamby:

Much of the comment thus far on the inaugural could use a little perspective. Bush is hardly the first American president to proclaim the virtues of democracy. And it seems clear that he uses the word, as Americans invariably do, in the sense of liberal democracy, a creed that reconciles majority rule with individual rights. The proclamation of an American mission to spread liberal democracy in the world is often connected with Democrats such as Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy (did Bush really outbid "pay any price, bear any burden"?), but Reagan staked a Republican claim to it. Bush needs to be understood as the latest comer to a long-established rhetorical tradition.

As for operational meaning, does anyone out there really think that he is going to try to overthrow the government of Pakistan? There is no reason to think that he and Condoleezza Rice do not understand the meaning of such terms as "lesser evil" or that the US in the next four years will rampage round the world. In fact, a "senior official" has identified a hit-list of the world's six most repugnant regimes that we would do well to try to change and have a clear interest in changing. No one can deny that doing something about these six is a big order that probably will not be achieved in Bush's second term, but what is the argument for ignoring them?

The realist tradition in American foreign policy has a long and honorable tradition. I happen to think that it served us pretty well during most of the Cold War, when we faced a nuclear-armed foe. But in today's world, the promotion of liberal democracy seems a pretty good strategy against Islamic terrorism. It won't be easy, but neither was nearly a half-century of containment. And, of course, we need to avoid moralistic hubris.

Let us also remember that realism has its own dark side. If asked to name the most shameful act of American foreign policy in my lifetime, I probably would refer to the decision of Brent Scowcroft and Bush 41 at the end of the Gulf War to encourage the Shia and Kurds to revolt against Saddam Hussein, then to do nothing as Saddam slaughtered them in horrific numbers. It was all about "stability," we later learned, after some embarrassing dissembling.

At this juncture, I'd rather see American foreign policy tied to the banner of liberal democracy, and I'm willing to bet that the administration can manage it intelligently.

From Matthew Richer:

Exactly what notion of liberty is Bush entertaining? Indeed, liberty is now an elastic word that has come to mean almost anything. Right up there with "equality," "compassion," and "globalization."

At the very least, Bush equates liberty with democracy -- a tenuous claim. And unfortunately, he sounds more interested in promoting it abroad than in practicing it at home.

from Paul Gottfried:

My own dissatisfaction with the way that the reactions to Bush's inaugural address have been presented in the national press is the journalistic obliviousness to the Old Right (what else can one expect?) and to its massive critical resistance to neoconservative policies and ideas. The impression my European friends have about political debate in the U.S. is that the "Right" is entirely on Bush's side, pushing a global democratic foreign policy, while the "Left" is made up of realists. Although this is the impression I too would have if I were a European watching American TV and reading our national press, it is (alas) misleading. There is unreported (perhaps inexcusably whited-out) opposition to Bush and his democratic messianism as well as to his reaching out to illegals, and it comes from a lively and articulate Right that both neocons and liberals try to keep out of the political conversation and political equation. The fact that most paleos of my acquaintance answered the call of nature, by voting instinctively for the Republican presidential candidate in November, provides a pretext for continuing to marginalize the real Right. It can be made to appear that the "Right" adores W because it allowed Republican operators to manipulate them into supporting "the lesser of two evils" -- once again.

from Larry Schweikart:

I thought the address will go down as one of the greats in American history. Already, I think I am being proved right that his National Cathedral address of 11/16/01 is one of the all-time greats. I am seeing that cited and quoted increasingly in the public literature.

The fact is, Bush uses a word, "Liberty," that no American president has used in a long time---even Reagan did not dwell on the notion of liberty this much. It's odd that so many conservatives would have such trouble with this. They should be celebrating. Indeed, in Clinton's term, I noted to my students how the word "liberty" had almost totally dropped out of political rhetoric. Yet Bush's use of the term is almost exactly in line with the "Reagan Doctrine," except Reagan applied it to communist states and Bush is applying it (without naming them) to Muslim states. Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, and others have realized for some time that while perhaps all Islam is not terrorist in character, certainly most of the terrorists are taking their marching orders from Islamic doctrines (however misconstrued . . . or however properly construed, depending on your view). Bush has laid down the gauntlet that we are not going to wait for the next attack.

from Matthew Richter:

I have to disagree with Mr. Schweikart. I simply find it hard to buy that Bush is somehow greatly committed to promoting liberty at home.

Just consider his "guest worker" proposal, which is clearly amnesty in disguise. Of course, amnesty may be a form of liberty for illegal aliens, but I doubt it gives those who live in the southwest a greater sense of freedom.

from Michael Tremoglie:

David Horowitz makes the most significant point - the msm liberals who were effusive praising Carter's "moral" foreign policy are now criticizing Bush.

One thing that everyone seems to be omitting, however - I guess because of the preoccupation with foreign policy - is Bush's theme of an "ownership" society. This is, of course, a concept continued from his first term. Nonetheless it is a significant change from the welfare policies of the FDR and LBJ years. One that indicates that although the welfare policies were necessary they are not the solution once thought. So while keeping welfare the idea is to make everyone an owner. For Bush everyone has or - should have - a stake in America.

I think this is very innovative - or very conservative because it is a concept that originated with the Founders I do believe.

Then again, maybe I am ignorant of something. Maybe this is not a new concept. Was "ownership society" a phrase or a policy used by another president before Bush's first term?

Posted by Greg Ransom