Didn't watch. Went for 10 cent hotwings and $1 PBR drafts instead.
Update: OK, so I just watched some highlights and read the transcript. Seemed good enough. Here's the part that really stood out for me:
Having said that, Bush is hardly the first to view the U.S. in this manner. Bill Clinton, in his own 1997 State of the Union speech, said that "America stands alone as the world’s indispensable nation."
What I have found shocking is the reaction of many on the left, especially the hard left, to such sentiment. Rather than embracing it, Bush's emphasis on the promotion of freedom and democracy has become an object of ridicule. There has even been the rise of this America first, nearly isolationist mentality that appears straight out of Pat Buchanan's playbook.
Democrats, especially in the House of Representatives, are increasingly against free trade, making noise about the need to protect American workers. There are calls for a pullout from Iraq among the anti-war left because Americans shouldn't be dying for the freedom of others. Instead of spending money in that country we should be spending it here in the U.S.
Frankly, it's weird. These are people who don't exactly go around wrapping themselves in the flag, yet they have this attitude that we need to look after the U.S. before other countries. I've noticed that many on the left like to pride themselves on how international they are. Rather than viewing themselves as Americans, they think of themselves as part of the broader international community or something. That's hardly surprising, if I remember correctly Marxists sought to frame matters in an international context that emphasized solidarity based on class rather than the artificial construct of nationality.
So for them to base their opposition to free trade and the projection of U.S. power based on U.S. self-interest strikes me as disingenuous. But I suppose compromising with your own principles is a small price to pay when your central organizing principle is opposing George W. Bush.
Now, I'm not oblivious to the costs involved of U.S. leadership, both in terms of lives and treasure. But what are the alternatives? If not us, who? Germany? France? The UN? Do we pull within our own borders and take a "screw them" attitude towards the rest of the world?
As much as it pains me to say it, the American Revolution -- and perhaps even the ideals it embodied -- would have been stillborn if not for assistance from the French. Americans have been given a gift that we are obligated to help pass on to others. I'm glad we seem to have a President that realizes that.
Update: More ridicule from liberals on freedom and democracy.
Update: OK, so I just watched some highlights and read the transcript. Seemed good enough. Here's the part that really stood out for me:
In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline.Bush seems to be a firm believer in American exceptionalism. Like myself, he thinks that the U.S. has a unique role to play in the world and a special duty to uphold -- namely the defense and spread of freedom and democracy. It's probably the biggest reason that I like him -- it's a whole lot more inspiring than much of his domestic agenda.
The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership.
So the United States of America will continue to lead.
Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal: We seek the end of tyranny in our world.
Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it.
On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.
Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction.
Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror.
Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom's cause.
Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time.
In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today there are 122.
And we are writing a new chapter in the story of self-government, with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom.
At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran -- because the demands of justice and the peace of this world require their freedom as well....
America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies and faced down an evil empire.
Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. ...
The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world.
Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth.
American leaders -- from Roosevelt, to Truman, to Kennedy, to Reagan -- rejected isolation and retreat because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.
Having said that, Bush is hardly the first to view the U.S. in this manner. Bill Clinton, in his own 1997 State of the Union speech, said that "America stands alone as the world’s indispensable nation."
What I have found shocking is the reaction of many on the left, especially the hard left, to such sentiment. Rather than embracing it, Bush's emphasis on the promotion of freedom and democracy has become an object of ridicule. There has even been the rise of this America first, nearly isolationist mentality that appears straight out of Pat Buchanan's playbook.
Democrats, especially in the House of Representatives, are increasingly against free trade, making noise about the need to protect American workers. There are calls for a pullout from Iraq among the anti-war left because Americans shouldn't be dying for the freedom of others. Instead of spending money in that country we should be spending it here in the U.S.
Frankly, it's weird. These are people who don't exactly go around wrapping themselves in the flag, yet they have this attitude that we need to look after the U.S. before other countries. I've noticed that many on the left like to pride themselves on how international they are. Rather than viewing themselves as Americans, they think of themselves as part of the broader international community or something. That's hardly surprising, if I remember correctly Marxists sought to frame matters in an international context that emphasized solidarity based on class rather than the artificial construct of nationality.
So for them to base their opposition to free trade and the projection of U.S. power based on U.S. self-interest strikes me as disingenuous. But I suppose compromising with your own principles is a small price to pay when your central organizing principle is opposing George W. Bush.
Now, I'm not oblivious to the costs involved of U.S. leadership, both in terms of lives and treasure. But what are the alternatives? If not us, who? Germany? France? The UN? Do we pull within our own borders and take a "screw them" attitude towards the rest of the world?
As much as it pains me to say it, the American Revolution -- and perhaps even the ideals it embodied -- would have been stillborn if not for assistance from the French. Americans have been given a gift that we are obligated to help pass on to others. I'm glad we seem to have a President that realizes that.
Update: More ridicule from liberals on freedom and democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment