I managed to miss all televised coverage of President Bush’s inaugural address today. Earning a living took precedence; and, after work, the re-styling of my weblog has eaten the hours. Now that I’ve managed to find a good breaking point, I’ve read the transcript of the inaugural address: amazing. Well, he always did sound better on paper than in person; I’m not sorry I missed the televised event.

Let’s see what he says and ponder what he meant:

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use but by the history we have seen together. For a half a century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders.

Hadn’t we already stood watch—for more than 50 years? When has our freedom ever been seriously threatened by a foreign force, after the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812? Bush seems to equate “American freedom” with “freedom from other nations.” Or does he mean our guarding of Europe against the Soviet Union—the only nation that might have seriously threatened us (or so we thought.)

After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical. And then there came a day of fire.

They were years of abandonment (the reckless, feckless kind.) Notice that he is describing America; many parts of the world were never in repose, nor were they quiet. But then the “day of fire” came. Remember that word: fire.

We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny — prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder, violence will gather and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat.

He misses the lesson. “The most defended borders” could not apply to the U.S. pre-9/11; yet the President is trying, in these lines, to reinforce his message that the greatest threat to freedom comes from without our borders. This is a grave error of judgment: that the “deepest source” of “our vulnerability” does not lie within us. He says later in the address that “Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self”—yet his entire message, thus far, is an effort to suggest that foreign forces might govern us.

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

This is a beautiful statement. It reminds me of something Ralph Waldo Emerson might say.

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. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

Different kinds of freedom exist, and politicians in America are always using the word to confuse America’s citizens. Libertines wish to be entirely free to do whatever they like and define “liberty” to encompass such freedom. I, on the other hand, am not free to blog 24/7, because I must earn a living elsewhere and I occasionally need to sleep. I suspect Bush’s concept of “freedom” is contingent on the idea that we should not need to worry about our borders, nor about having a military, nor about fending off nuclear-armed terrorists. I.e., Could America remain free, internally, if other nations—in any number—are not free? Walt Whitman had a thought about this, too, which is hard to deny. Unfortunately, President Bush conveys his belief that we Americans are not so concerned about the freedom others possess (or don’t possess) as we are about our own freedom, and puts the argument thus: Serve yourself, America!

America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.

This is the most telling statement thus far. See my last comment of the preceding item.

From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth.

Not true; but he wants us to believe in the perpetual infallibility of our great nation.

Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.

Well, eventually, yeah. I think most people less like the idea “no one is fit to be a master” than the idea in the last clause of that sentence, and would admit as much if they were pressed—and to be even-handed, I have to wonder if certain leftists and certain rightists really want people to be self-governed.

Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time. So 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 our world.

Notice how he leaps from “advancing these ideals” and “our fathers” to “ending tyranny in our world.” Whereas our, er, founding fathers sought to establish a nation in which these ideals would flourish and cause the people to flourish, President Bush is proclaiming that other lands will be similarly domesticated. Certainly, some of the founders had visions of a global future in which liberty would stand triumphant over tyranny; but they focused their attentions at home. No longer.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own.

What a conundrum for the President. The advancement of technology—specifically, of weapons technology—has made the possibility of revolution much more difficult; when tyrants control the technology, they have a nearly unbreakable grip on the nation: advanced weaponry (including biological and chemical); advanced surveillance. A people cannot “choose” freedom easily and must be helped, but at some point they must choose it for themselves. What if they don’t, for one reason or another—such as fear?

And what’s that he’s saying? He’s speaking of the relativity of just institutions? This is setting us up for an outcome in Iraq which doesn’t fit our own idea of “democracy.” But there’s more: What about gay marriage? Seriously. The relativity he’s acknowledging places great shadows on the Religious Right’s notion that some institutions are morally better than others or are more just. I can imagine that some members of that faction were furious at these statements made by our President. (For that matter, “protection of minorities” sounds awfully nice. Howzabout a federal protection amendment for gays and lesbians in the workforce and elsewhere?)

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.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America’s influence is not unlimited, but, fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America’s resolve and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.

Here’s “freedom” again. The oppression/freedom platitude wears thin upon examination. We are oppressed by many things we cannot overthrow; and, absolute freedom in a human society is possible?

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. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.

America’s belief in human dignity will guide our policies. Yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators. They are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some I know have questioned the global appeal of liberty, though this time in history — four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen — is an odd time for doubt.

Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals.
Eventually the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

This is the most beautiful section of the address. His speechwriter should be given an award. This address will go down in history as one of the finest, if Bush’s promises don’t flounder.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”

Yes, Bush is styling himself after Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps it is fitting, if Bush really means to accomplish all that he implies. On the other hand, before he brings Lincoln into it, he speaks in code to certain foreign individuals: “Now is the time for you to stand up and throw off your chains! If you do, we’ll reward you.”

I’ll need to leave the rest of the speech for a future post; time is short at the moment.