RoR: Forum

"Well, guess what, he could have shown "how easy it is" to invade Cuba (secretly and by surprise), instead he used Cuba to build prison camps safely away from US jurisdiction, that's great isn't it."

Bush didn't build them, they were already there. Even Clinton used them from time to time.
I suppose Clinton was flawless in your eyes?

A lot of lefties do not wish to admit that when Clinton was asked about Bushes actions regarding Iraq and Saddam - he said that had he still been President at the time of Bush that he would have done exactly the same thing.

No, but Bush the republican is a war-mongering degenerate, right? Whereas Kennedy and Clinton the democrats were peace-loving defenders of freedom.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 3/11, 5:17am)

Post 41

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 4:16am

If the standard of value is my life, then George Bush is really destroying liberty. He is running and advancing a faith-based government, and instituting more government controls domestically. He wants to destroy the civil right of trial by jury. He wants to give government money to churches. He wants citizens to be treated as criminals, with the default being the right of government forces into your private life, whether proven guilty or not. The national ID card is on the way. He favors the destruction of Social Security, but has not outlined exactly WHAT tax-deferred saving program he would allow private citizens to use (the current IRA limits are a joke). His spending has no limit.

Overseas, Bush is not undermining the IDEA that faith as a guide to one's actions is wrong and dangerous. HE IS EXACTLY LIKE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS IN THIS REGARD. He just doesn't like their overtly murderous brand of religiosity, the sting of which Americans have felt domestically, so he is gutting them, because he can.

Make no mistake, George Bush is effective in achieving his goals. The ruthless and utterly-certain usually are.

Post 42

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 4:20am

And frankly, I am amazed at ANY American who can context drop to the magnitude of saying that the destruction of civil liberties at home are insignificant as compared to establishing democracy abroad. Does that mean overt dictatorship in America would be OK if we converted Communist China to democracy? Respect for freedom starts at home, and should be exported from there. What good is establishing it elsewhere when you destroy it here?

Post 43

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 7:34am

Ok, this piece might be of interest to the debate:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,345550,00.html

@DeSalvo:

Ah, I fully agree, that's what I think most here missed in my arguments.

@Marcus:

"Bush didn't build them, they were already there. Even Clinton used them from time to time.
I suppose Clinton was flawless in your eyes?"

No, I didn't like Clinton did, he was just fiscally better than Bush. His engagement in the bloody useless war at the Balkan, is one of the stupid things he did. I don't see just one aspect of a man and think that he is good. You have to put the actions into context. Clinton was a weakling and a politician who should have played his instrument rather than being a president.

The Nato engagements against Serbia were one of the most condemable things done during his period. The bombing of Balkan countries and the wake of destruction it left behind, is one of the most stupid military actions of the modern world.

Don't try to see a socialist, just because I don't agree with your assessment of Mr. Bush, please.

A lot of lefties do not wish to admit that when Clinton was asked about Bushes actions regarding Iraq and Saddam - he said that had he still been President at the time of Bush that he would have done exactly the same thing.

That's why I don't think that Clinton nor Bush are good presidents, because they like to hit the war button to fast with almost no second thought, that he is sacrificing American lives in that attempt.

"No, but Bush the republican is a war-mongering degenerate, right? Whereas Kennedy and Clinton the democrats were peace-loving defenders of freedom."

Let's not get started on this level, it is too low and Kennedy nor Clinton were any good example for a president. They might be popular, but they certainly weren't good presidents on the liberty and consistency record.

@Alec:

It is a Jefferson quote from this very thread.
Well, given that Senate and the House are under Republican control, Bush might attack whatever state he CAN show to be a threat to the USA and a target in the War on Terror. He cannot attack some state like North Korea, because it is too strong, it has nuclear weapons and it is not directly connectable to terrorism.

If you follow the news with a bit of awareness, you might have seen, how the Bush administration manipulate the public by repeating lies. He called peace what was war, he called justice and pro-life what actually was not.
It reminded me a bit of newspeak. Certainly, there is something like political language and its corruption on our own vocabulary.
Bush is not the evil himself, but his a threat to civil liberties in the USA and he is not the best in foreign relations. I just wanted to show the reason, why I voted Certainly Not.
And "supported by a large part of the public".. about 60% is not a large part, but merely half of the country. But we all had that discussions, plus the problem of democracy (the majority can enslave the minority). So, let's not get started on this one again

(Edited by Max on 3/11, 7:42am)

Post 44

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 7:34am

Adam,
Thanks for the note on KOR. I have a couple of Polish friends who came to the US in early-mid 80s when Solidarity just started. They talked about it with high respect. I think the brilliant and well-organized Solidarity movement spearheaded the whole sentiment toward reform in many Communist countries at the time, including Soviet and China. In comparison, Chinese democracy movement in the 80s, involving mostly a few intellectuals and young students without any good organization, did not go far at all.

Post 45

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 8:23am

Liberty at home is more important than liberty abroad. Period. For example, how can you fight a war against religious fundamentalism abroad if you practice it at home?

I also find it suspect that 26+ people voted "certainly" when we have yet to see how the American intervention in Iraq will play out. You can reasonably vote "probably" . . . but "certainly"? We have established a democracy, but democracy and liberty do not always go hand-in-hand. Far from it. We see even here in America that a majority can vote away the rights of a minority.

In Iraq, the majority voted into power Shiite Muslims who have said they will establish a government with Islam and the Koran as a pillar. That sounds like Iran to me (the more important enemy in my opinion). Given how Islamic fundamentalism is the enemy, I am not sure how anyone can think that this is a step in the right direction (bear in mind that the Sunnis were more secular than the Shiites).

I do not doubt that the President's intentions are good, but you know what they say about what the road to Hell is paved with.

Post 46

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 9:10am

We do NOT live in a democracy - we live in a Republic - democracy is mob rule [tho the way this republic is turning, there may become little difference between the two in practice].

Post 47

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 9:13am

And why does Mr. Bush then want to establish Democracies in the Middle East? *irritated*

And could you please refine the definition of Republic in regard to Democracy?

Post 48

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 2:31pm

Response to Max
-------------
Max, here are 3 distinctions (the first 2 answer your question; the third provides critical and timely perspective) ...

1) Democracy (as direct democracy):
" ... a government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and in which the governed direct what laws shall be passed ... "
- Mortimer Adler (How to think about the Great Ideas)

2) Republic (as representative democracy):
" ... a government in which the supreme power resides in those elected by the people."
- Mortimer Adler (How to think about the Great Ideas)

3) Republic (as constitutional; representatives are always and only motivated by the direct application of constitutionally-defined purposes):
" ... any form of constitutional government or government by laws."
- Mortimer Adler (How to think about the Great Ideas)

Insight from Rand
-------------
Also pertinent to this discussion, are Rand's 4 criteria for rational foreign policy - abstracted from the following quote:

" ... a policy explicitly and proudly dedicated to the defense of America's rights and national self-interests, repudiating foreign aid and all forms of international self-immolation."

Criteria:
1) defense of America's rights
2) defense of America's self-interests
3) repudiation of foreign aid
4) repudiation of all forms of international self-immolation

I don't see Bush meeting these criteria - do I need more perspective?

Insight from Ed
-------------
-financial cost of war is now projected to average greater than $1000 per US citizen
(would pro-Busher's have each individually agreed to spend, on average, over $1000 - for the Iraq-liberation gamble?)

-the Global War on Terror is an unlimited purpose, which runs defiantly against this wise quote from Alexander Hamilton:
"Every power ought to be commensurate with its object. There ought to be no limitation of power destined to affect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation."

-are we promoting more freedom in the world (and/or at home) or are we promoting a neo-fascism merely disguised as "freedom"?
(the Enron-Halliburton-Saudi ties to the last 2 wars are difficult to dismiss - and impossibly so without noncontradictory rationale)

Ed

Post 49

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 2:57pm

Nice to see you back Ed_Ucating us again, Ed!

Post 50

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 3:37pm

Ed, I concur with Rodney. Good to have you back.

Post 51

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 3:46pm

Ed, Byron, Max and Scott,

What you guys seem to lose sight of is the original question.

On balance, is George Bush helping the cause of liberty?

The question was not "has Bush consistently helped the cause of Liberty at home and abroad"?

Is not the removal of a murdering dictator - who is no longer murdering people - to help (not necessarily to guarantee) the cause of Liberty?

Post 52

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 4:17pm

Marcus, here is 'The Bush Balance Sheet':

1. The capture and killing of thousands of Al Qaeda operatives worldwide, including many of the top figures.

2. The destruction of the Taliban base of terrorist operations, which as a consequence liberated millions of people from tyranny.

3. The destruction of the Saddam's tyranny that presented a significant threat to American security. As a consequence, millions were liberated, and a ripple effect of that liberation has begun throughout the middle-east.

4. Other areas of effect: Ukrainian independence, Libyan WMD reversal, reforms in Lebanon, support of Israel against terror, stance against Hugo Chavez and North Korea.

Now, there is a catalogue of negatives I could go through - but on BALANCE they do not measure up to cancel out the postives. Also, one could argue (and I intend to in a future article) that in most of these cases Bush was far too hesitant, plodding, and appeasing. Nevertheless, given the alternatives offered by most other nations, and the other American Party, he has done well.

My answer is within the context of the question as asked in this poll. Any other answer than 'certainly' is one that baffles me. To be honest I feel he has been far too timid, and may still unravel in regards to Iran. For example when I rate his opposition to Chavez as a plus, it makes my own blood boil, because he has been coddling to the bastard - BUT within the context of the political reality within the world as it actually exist today (a world that fawns and praises Chavez) Bush becomes nearly the only voice that champions liberty, almost by default.

The only way I can see anyone answering 'probably or certainly not'; is if you are using a utopian fantasy world standard, or you are part of the problem in the first place.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/11, 4:20pm)

Post 53

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 4:31pm

Great post George!

Puts things back into perspective.

Post 54

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 5:00pm

My answer is within the context of the question as asked in this poll. Any other answer than 'certainly' is one that baffles me. To be honest I feel he has been far too timid, and may still unravel in regards to Iran.

Timid...exactly George C! There is a contradiction between what Bush says and what Bush does. He does not communicate a clear message of freedom. He appeases his opponents. Then he goes behind their backs and wages war but I'm not convinced it's for the right reasons. That's timid. But, of course, Bush is a solid representation of his electorate so it is as expected. Freedom will never grow from wishy-washy leadership.

We must be consistent in our message: It is virtuous to vaporize terrorists who threaten our way of life.

Put that on a flag and let our heroic armed forces go and conquer.

Post 55

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 9:38pm

Thanks Rodney and Bob (for the kind words).

Marcus, I appreciate your attention to detail. I'm often idealistic and sometimes I need to be "reeled in" to the task at hand. However, I do have an ironic criticism of the "original question" to which you have brought back the discussion:

"On balance, is George Bush helping the cause of liberty?"

With regard to this original question, I have an issue with the phrase: "the cause of liberty." The question itself rings of an unhealthy idealism - entailing a floating abstraction, such as "the public good."

With this concern in mind, the questions: Liberty for who? Liberty for what? - become legitimate points of discussion.

I understand that "world freedom" would be a value to me (and therefore a noble, moral goal) but I still have concerns that are best articulated by quoting Rand:

" ... sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis--and "the public good" is the altar on which victims are immolated."
and
"The fascist-Nazi axis ... keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest."

Marcus, substituting "the cause of liberty" for "the public good" - and substituting "the cause of liberty" for that "spiritual duty, service and conquest" - appear valid here, and that concerns me immensly.

And less seriously (but still to the point), I have an outline of short-story in mind that illustrates my view:
------------------
The Laizze-faire Freedom Fighters (LFFF; a Capitalist network from France) note that the US has been progressively more of a mixed-economy, and they proceed to invade Alaska to make that state more free (thinking that other states, upon seeing pure capitalism, will probably follow suit).

They invade and guard the oil (leaving the weapons warehouses unguarded). Later, it is found that the #2 LFFF guy was the CEO of BFO, the oil company in charge of "liberating" Alaskan oil. It also gets to the press that he still has a $1M yearly contract with this company. It also gets out that the company and the Heads of State at LFFF had been having secret meetings (for years) about the oil in Alaska.

The State-supported Alaskan Mixed-Economists (SAME; members of a statist network, with cells all over the state) rebel against this "liberation" of their oil. The LFFF schizms into 2 poles - one believing that they should "finish what they start" and one who upon accepting that phrase, applies it to the "start" of free, moral countries (to the principle of minarchy as a absolute rule of thumb).
-------------

Marcus, I know this story misses key details, but - "on balance" - how would you react to others who are more free (10 countries are currently more economically free than the US) invading the US and tapping its natural resources with their homeland corporations (with the "Unknown Ideal" as their stated purpose)?

Ed

Post 56

Friday, March 11, 2005 - 11:50pm

It's still hard for me to understand how in the evaluation of political leader as a 'defender of freedom', some Objectivists are suggesting that we should essentially ignore how that leader governs his own people.

Post 57

Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 12:00am

Additionally, I feel Byron's comments are instructive, given his military background and first hand involvement in the region. He is hesitant to declare that the net result of our efforts there will lead to increased liberty, and his rhetoric is not steeped in the pie-in-the-sky Wilsonianism that many Objectivists seem to embrace these days.

Post 58

Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 12:13am

And here's another question for the pro-Iraq-war crowd, one that was posed by Rumsfeld in a memo that accidentally got leaked to the press a while back:

Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

The answer to this question really tells us to what degree Bush is a champion of liberty abroad.

Post 59

Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 9:38am