Moot Thoughts & Musings

So I turned on the TV right after the solo and right before George said his vows. Then I watched the speech, listened to some of the band music and commentaries, and went off to teach my class. So I watched the main part of the inauguration. All I could think of was how cold everyone must've been sitting out there...and the poor Marine band with the cold metal instruments!!

I don't feel like I can articulate very well the problems and unsettlings I felt upon listening to the speech. I can offer some gut reactions, and keep thinking:

It's no news that I'm not a fan of Bush, and this morning did nothing to change it. It kind of freaked me out. Basically he could've titled the speech "Freedom for the Whole World," and the thesis could be: "If we want freedom in our country, we have to make sure that the whole world has our kind of freedom, or somebody might try to infringe on our freedom." Now I used the same word, freedom, repeatedly in my distillation of the thesis. Bush uses freedom, liberty, and democracy as synonyms, so you could re-read the statement as: "If we want democracy in our country, we have to make sure that the whole world has our kind of democracy, or somebody might to infringe on our democracy." It's a security thing, after all. Don't you want to be secure!? Export freedom and democracy today!!

I'm all for freedom. I'm glad I live in the U.S. and enjoy the freedoms I enjoy, but this idea of exporting a Western form democracy is freaky. It's a form of imperialism or colonialism essentially. It's the same idea that was behind the British Empire of the 19th/early 20th c. Taking the initiative to export your way of government is not necessarily a constructive way of living out one's ideal of Freedom=Good.

What was even more scary was Bush described this as the goal of U.S. policy!! Taking our Freedom and our Democracy to the ends of the world. Like he's spreading the gospel or something (only not). The GOAL of U.S. policy!??!?! The chief end of our government is to spread our government all over the world? That's what the speech said to me, and I wasn't too keen on that idea, because the consequences of this idea will essentially follow.

Bush said that it essentially our Moral Duty as a nation to uphold Freedom all over the world and that this Duty would underpin U.S. policy. So if tyrants stand in the way, knock 'em down. Tyrants are against Freedom, and we are for Freedom. It's a clear definition of good vs. evil.

But I don't think it is just that clear.

This may be part of the problem I had with the speech. Bush used very lofty, abstract, idealistic language. He spoke in the most general of terms. Throughout the speech he talks of Freedom, Democracy, and Liberty, but I still don't have a clear sense about what he means by those words. Democracy is probably the easiest to understand because we the working picture of government to fall back on, and I can only assume that he means something like our gov't when he says Democracy. But Freedom and Liberty? Those are big words with a lot of meaning, and from listening to his speech, I wonder if perhaps I see those words in slightly different shades than Bush does. I would have to think a bit further before I try to explain that difference, though.

Bush does say that when Democracy is exported all over the world, it will likely take on different shades as it encounters different cultures. I'm not sure if he understands what that means; I don't think anybody does. It might sound good as an idea, but none of us have a picture of how this looks. It's not happening in Iraq.* If anything Democracy is clashing with that culture. Democracy is essentially a Western institution. As far as I understand it,** it assumes things about the nature of an individual and that individual's function in society that is distinctly Western and humanistic. Every time Democracy flourishes in Western culture (Greece, the Enlightenment), it's with a very humanistic understanding of humans, how each human has rights pertaining to him/herself because of their humanity. Not every culture shares this essential part of the Democratic ideal.

Bush spent a few words talking about Freedom at home, not nearly as much as he talked about it abroad, which I thought was kind of weird, since he's the President of the U.S., not the President of the World. The stuff he said was kind of banal, predictable, and didn't really mean anything. Yea, who would disagree with better healthcare, retirements, education, housing? He didn't give me a better understanding about he saw those things happening, though, just that they should happen. (duh.)

The tone of speech didn't help me understand what he was going to do these next four years to make the U.S. a better place (except for knocking down the tyrants of the world), because he used such airy language. I did get somewhat of a better understanding of where he's coming from idealogically, though, and I'm not sure if that makes me feel better or not.

I mean, you can't say, "I hated his speech, because I don't want other countries to have Freedom." Freedom is good thing, right? I'm not down on Freedom. I'm glad I live in the U.S. and enjoy the freedoms I do enjoy. I'm just not sure if our national leader to be implementing this ideology in the practical way that he is.

At least it's a 4 year term, and not like a king, where he'd rule for his lifetime.

*After the speech the TV guys kept talking about "a rock", and I was like "what rock? what are they talking about it?" Then I realized they were saying "iraq". :P
**wh. may not be a vast understanding, since I spend most of political ponderings on monarchies of the Middle Ages