03 September 2004
Bush’s Evangelism
On September 2, 2004, President accepted his party’s nomination for reelection with a thinly disguised evangelical appeal to a seemingly enrapt audience. His speech included the following principle:
“The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.”
I can understand that in a global community that has shrunk because of the information technology revolution, our own freedom depends on the ability of free men and women around the world to control their own destinies. But should we impose “freedom” by force? Is it not antithetical to freedom that “democracy” be established in repressed societies by the intervention of the world’s superpower?
America, after all, is the fountainhead of the IT revolution. Why can’t it use its skills and tools to teach peoples caught under the oppression of cruel and authoritarian regimes how to recover self-determination? This strategy takes more time to show results than military action; and it doesn’t aggrandize the empires of industrialists and neo-conservatives. Just as important, it may not be achievable within the four-year framework of Presidential politics. But it is more in line with the inhibitive spirit of our founding fathers.
On September 2, 2004, President accepted his party’s nomination for reelection with a thinly disguised evangelical appeal to a seemingly enrapt audience. His speech included the following principle:
“The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.”
I can understand that in a global community that has shrunk because of the information technology revolution, our own freedom depends on the ability of free men and women around the world to control their own destinies. But should we impose “freedom” by force? Is it not antithetical to freedom that “democracy” be established in repressed societies by the intervention of the world’s superpower?
America, after all, is the fountainhead of the IT revolution. Why can’t it use its skills and tools to teach peoples caught under the oppression of cruel and authoritarian regimes how to recover self-determination? This strategy takes more time to show results than military action; and it doesn’t aggrandize the empires of industrialists and neo-conservatives. Just as important, it may not be achievable within the four-year framework of Presidential politics. But it is more in line with the inhibitive spirit of our founding fathers.
Comments:
Post a Comment
