Friday, January 21, 2005
Just like four years ago, I skipped the inaugural speech. Reading the transcript is an altogether calmer affair, however.
Bush is clearly quite comfortable in his self-designed role as a crusader for freedom. He has all the confidence of a true evangelist. And, to the extent that he's referencing democracy as an ultimate solution to global ills, I can largely agree with him.
A hint of where he goes awry can be found in his description of the pre-9/11 years as "years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical." The 1990s were anything but quiet. Lest he forget, we had military actions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq and Kosovo. There was also the first stirrings of the war on terror. In declaring the transformative nature of democracy, Bush is really just taking lines from Bill Clinton - the difference is how he's acted on this belief.
One sign of the problem with Bush's speech is the absence of the word "Iraq" in it. That country between Jordan and Iran poses, some might say, a real challenge to this ideology of democratic evangelism. I have unmitigated scorn for folks who think Saddam was the leader who best fit Iraq - that's actually one of the more racist things that can be said of the country. Still, the ongoing war there is a pretty damning illustration of where this whole quest against tyranny will lead us if managed incompetently.
I don't dislike Bush because I don't agree with him about democracy. I dislike him because his administration is intellectually unable to pursue such a vital and challenging mission - they confuse questions about execution with questions about resolve. They adapt poorly and plan badly. When they are done, I fear, they will have thoroughly discredited a noble idea that long preceded them.
Bush is clearly quite comfortable in his self-designed role as a crusader for freedom. He has all the confidence of a true evangelist. And, to the extent that he's referencing democracy as an ultimate solution to global ills, I can largely agree with him.
A hint of where he goes awry can be found in his description of the pre-9/11 years as "years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical." The 1990s were anything but quiet. Lest he forget, we had military actions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq and Kosovo. There was also the first stirrings of the war on terror. In declaring the transformative nature of democracy, Bush is really just taking lines from Bill Clinton - the difference is how he's acted on this belief.
One sign of the problem with Bush's speech is the absence of the word "Iraq" in it. That country between Jordan and Iran poses, some might say, a real challenge to this ideology of democratic evangelism. I have unmitigated scorn for folks who think Saddam was the leader who best fit Iraq - that's actually one of the more racist things that can be said of the country. Still, the ongoing war there is a pretty damning illustration of where this whole quest against tyranny will lead us if managed incompetently.
I don't dislike Bush because I don't agree with him about democracy. I dislike him because his administration is intellectually unable to pursue such a vital and challenging mission - they confuse questions about execution with questions about resolve. They adapt poorly and plan badly. When they are done, I fear, they will have thoroughly discredited a noble idea that long preceded them.
