A revealing statement
President Bush made this important statement at the re-dedication of the Washington DC Islamic Center last week, via Daniel Pipes:
“I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace.”
This is a sentence that deserves to be read several times. The “heart of my presidency” — a very revealing phrase indeed. One must question whether the “heart” of any American presidency should be about people who are overwhelmingly not Americans, who live mostly very far away, and whose societies have so little in common with the Judeo-Christian-Enlightenment traditions passed down to us principally from England. We find the statement disturbing in its grandiosity. In electing George Bush, Americans did not elect a Pope, or Martin Luther, or the new rector of Al Azhar University, or president of the world. That sentence, in defining the presidency of George Bush in such a sweeping set of goals, calls to mind the words of Bush’s second inaugural address, and Peggy Noonan’s commentary on them:
The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling…
“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.” “Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self government…Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.” “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 the world.”
Ending tyranny in the world? Well that’s an ambition, and if you’re going to have an ambition it might as well be a big one. But this declaration, which is not wrong by any means, seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. Tyranny is a very bad thing and quite wicked, but one doesn’t expect we’re going to eradicate it any time soon…
“Renewed in our strength — tested, but not weary — we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.” This is — how else to put it? — over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past “mission inebriation.” A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts…
From Vladimir Putin’s soul to the Harriet Miers nomination to the Senate immigration bill, we note a number of instances where the President’s estimation of good intentions has appeared to trump reality, competence, or practicality. President Bush’s statement about what lies at the “heart” of his presidency — goals that may not be practical or indeed appropriate for an American presidency — seems disturbingly consistent with these other cases of good intentions trumping more vital concerns.
July 5th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Yes, and so is Peggy Noonan’s quote:
I know how else to put it: this is nuts.
************
If you’re concerned, remember that family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande.
July 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
“I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace.”
If ONLY this read:
“I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Americans fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace.”
In that case:
* we’d have broken ties with Saudi and closed down CAIR and other apologists for terror
* we’d have increased personal liberty in this country rather than adding to the numerous ties that bind us down. Government paid pharmaceuticals for retirees (i.e., increased taxes for the middle class), anyone?
* we’d have closed the non-existent border between the US and Mexico to allow *Americans* (not illegals) to find their way to prosperity and increased domestic tranquility without nationwide demonstrations by those who should not be here at all
Unfortunately, I believe George Bush, in his heart of hearts, does not value America as it is, but as he hopes he can make it. Instead, his heart seems to be with Mexicans who wish to come here (thus changing our country to better reflect what they left behind, and Muslims who do not wish us well but would prefer to see us vanquished.
In the end, it seems to me that G. Bush considers himself the president of ALL people, not the American people that elected him.
July 6th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I don’t think you can fault Bush for not acting like a ‘classic’ right wing libertarian. After all, he ran for office on the basis that he wouldn’t be. He’s a Christian, and he ran as a Compassionate Conservative, so how surprising is it to see him support an immigration amnesty (for example). Sure, the immigration system is badly managed, but regardless, once millions of people have made a home here with the tacit approval of the authorities (and you have every right to resent it, but the authorities _did_ give tacit approval on your behalf) it would be immoral to evict them, not to mention an tragedy greater than the refugee movements of 1945, and an outrage against human rights that would take America many decades to live down.
But if you’re OK with that…
As for Iraq, that was out of the blue but a good decision. And Bush basically ran in 2004 on the basis that he would see it through over there. A very expensive policy and not a ‘libertarian’ one, but undoubtedly in keeping with the moral, compassionate, Christian and conservative platform he espoused. And one that will greatly benefit the long term security of America and the world.
So, good for him that he made that the heart of his presidency. He’s kept faith with the promises he was elected on, and with the innocents who have put their trust in him.
A good man, a good Christian and a great US President. I see plenty to love and admire there.