Truman, Reagan, and Bush Were Right
The powerful waves of discontent still washing over the Middle East will oblige the White House to keep its attention focused on the long-suppressed demands among Arab peoples to determine their own destinies. President Obama and his team can draw inspiration and guidance from the three most consequential advocates among his modern Oval Office predecessors of the preservation and extension of democracy and freedom abroad as a defining principle of American foreign policy.
On March 12, 1947, with Communism on the march imposing totalitarian government throughout eastern Europe, and with Greece and Turkey tottering, President Harry S. Truman addressed a joint session of Congress. Communist aggression, the president declared, had forced the free world into a global struggle between “alternative ways of life.”
In response, Truman announced the doctrine to which his name became attached: “One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion.” America should concentrate on creating the material conditions of freedom, which meant providing “economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.”
On June 8, 1982, with intellectual and political elites on the left believing that Western liberal democracies had much to learn from Communism about social justice and not a few on the right thinking that concerning world affairs it was best for America to mind its own business, President Ronald Reagan addressed members of the British Parliament to warn of “threats now to our freedom, indeed to our very existence, that other generations could never even have imagined.” Prominent among them were “global war” in which the use of nuclear weapons “could mean, if not the extinction of mankind, then surely the end of civilization as we know it,” and “the enormous power of the modern state” which, readily abused, worked “to stifle individual excellence and personal freedom.”
To defeat these novel threats to freedom, Reagan announced a long term undertaking “to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.” Out of this mandate, which broadened Truman’s understanding of the conditions under which freedom flourished and posed a task Reagan recognized would “long outlive our own generation,” was born the National Endowment for Democracy.
On Nov. 6, 2003, to honor NED’s twentieth anniversary, President George W. Bush, addressing the United States Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C., became the first U.S. president to focus what he called “the freedom agenda” — an elaboration of the Truman Doctrine and the principles Reagan expounded in his speech at Westminster — on the Muslim Middle East. His perspective, like that of Truman and Reagan, looked not merely to the moment but beyond the horizon. Securing and extending freedom in the Middle East, he insisted, must be “a focus of American policy for decades to come.”
The universal claims of human freedom did not dictate a single set of political institutions, Bush observed, but all democracies that protect freedom, he insisted, must conform to certain “vital principles.” They must “limit the power of the state”; establish the “consistent and impartial rule of law”; “allow room for healthy civic institutions — for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media”; “guarantee religious liberty”; “privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property”; “prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people”; “recognize the rights of women”; “and instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.”
Truman, Reagan, and Bush were right.
In forthrightly proclaiming support for those demanding freedom and democracy in Egypt, President Obama aligned himself with a proud American foreign policy tradition, with both progressive and conservative roots. He should claim that tradition as his own and, in the face of Gaddafi’s war against the Libyan people, reaffirm it. At the same time, and in the spirit of that tradition, the president should adopt a long-term perspective, contributing to the advancement of democracy abroad by recommitting America to the arduous, gradual, patient work of cultivating the conditions — material, moral, and political — under which freedom flourishes.
BTW, Obama hasn’t been able to ‘address Libya’ due to ‘scheduling conflicts’.
What a sorry sack..
Why oh why oh why is our unusually obtuse and amateurish president not seeing the writing on the wall and doing so simple and easy thing in this most rare of opportunities to ‘not let a crisis go to waste?’ He should get his sorry ass back from Wisconsin and give a prime-time Oval Office address in which he firmly and unequivocally offers the support and goodwill of the American people in standing side-by-side with the people of Libya and Iran in opposing their illegitimate governments. He should announce aid packages, State Dept initiatives, and even offers of military support to help the people in their quest for self-determination. In this he has NOTHING to lose…
This one little speech would not only improve his battered approval ratings, not only burnish his badly tarnished foreign policy credentials, not only carry through to future generations as in integral part of his legacy (a loa Reagan’s Tear Down This Wall speech), but maybe, just maybe, help shape any future Iranian and Libyan regime (which is almost inevitable at this point anyway) in a more pro-US direction.
Instead, he’s pissing away political capital to freeze (even amplify) a crushing debt load on the US and on each state fighting for fiscal survival. Just who’s side is this moron on anyway?? A more obvious display of anti-Americanism emanating from our country’s titular head has not been seen in all of its 235 year history. Some adult in the White House needs to tell him that hes the President of the UNITED STATES, not the President of the UNITED LABOR UNIONS, leaving the rest of the country and world leaderless. Somebody please impeach this ‘dude.’ Please.
Great article, Mr. Berkowitz. Too bad that so many on this website have been reacting to the democratic revolution in the Middle East with fear and disdain rather than Reaganite optimism. I guess it’s easier to seek comfort in casting aspersions than expressing solidarity with the Arab people as they face the difficult task of building democracy and combating radical Islam in the days ahead.
Actually, I think we are all remembering the euphoria of the democratic uprising in Iran which was quickly hi-jacked by the Ayatollahs.
We want them to have the same freedoms we have – but we see the muslim brotherhood lurking in the shadows. We’re not stupid.
Who’s to say that radical theocratic forces in the Middle East recognized Obama’s weakness through his effort to be everybody’s best pal in the region (except Israel’s) along with his ideologic allergy to confrontation (in order to appease his far left buddies), and sensed this was their opportunity to pounce? They probably reasoned–and were apparently correct–they were not likely to engender any response from the neophyte in the White House who was more consumed with ushering in his “fundamental transformation of America”.
I know Bush, Reagan & Truman were right, but now we have to watch to see what happens in Egypt. That country worries me, we don’t know if the people are strong enough to resist the Muslim Brotherhood. Most of the population there is under 30 and unemployed. We will watch and hope for the best.
Sudan is much worse on it’s Christian population, why not put them in the news?
Of course, Libya is bad, and so is a lot of other Middle Eastern countries. Maybe, he did give the order to blow up PanAm flight over Lockerbie, maybe not. The Scottish government let the terrorist covicted of the murders go. Why is the Scottish government not made out to be evil too?
We are neck deep in Afganistan, and we are not out of Iraq yet. Plus, we are invaded in the south by Mexico, and OTM’s. Therefore, so what is Libya eats their own?
The Constitution of these United States will work only in a nation that is rooted in Christian ideals.
Semper Fi, Leatherneck….
…we need to look after ourselves; we don’t need that continuous implication that all of the world’s troubles are America’s open-ended responsibility…..accompanied by the rampant parallel anti-Americanism.
With “friends” like that….etc.
the reason this revolution is not like any other is the US dollar is backed by the petroleum reserves of the Middle east, known as the Petro Dollar System.
Saudi Arabia is the lynch pin, if Saudi Arabia goes, which is becoming more and more probable, then it is the end of the US dollar. It is probably why NYSE is being sold to German Bourse, and Chinese are moving into position buying portions of US markets…they see what the rest of America ignores.
The Constitution is a set of restrictions placed upon a Government, absolutely nothing to do with Christian ideals. The ENTIRE reason the Constitution works is repudiation that religion or royalty is the source of Law.
Obama cannot come out and verbally say the right things. He has to do them behind the scenes, if he does them at all. To actually say the right thing would be to endorse Bush’s position.
After the massive media effort to tear down Bush, after his endless campaigning against Bush and his “misguided” foreign policy, he cannot say Bush was right after all. He cannot do it politically, nor personally, because he would be saying he himself was wrong.
Can you just see the discussion after his taking the right position?
“Soooo… Bush was right after all? Which means your position on the campaign trail was wrong? Which means you really were “green behind the ears” (from 1st Presidential debate)? So, Biden was right when he said that “the Presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job training”?
His is a Presidency already lacking any credibility. Can you just see the people hearing the Republicans saying, “We told you this Emperor has no clothes”? Even the dullest independent would figure it out, and turn him out in the next election.
This faulty and naive concept……
…”the president should adopt a long-term perspective, contributing to the advancement of democracy abroad by recommitting America to the arduous, gradual, patient work of cultivating the conditions — material, moral, and political — under which freedom flourishes…..”
…is doomed to frustrating failure because our system, as it has stood since our Independence from Britain in the Eighteenth Century, has always been and remains wide open for minute examination to all those even remotely interested to emulate and attempt to copy. But….how many nascent nationalistic forces have actually emerged as democracies after observing the American experience?
Where are the visible successes accomplished under such a facile “policy”..since 1945 and the collapse of Colonialism? Where are the healthy descendant democratic governments of those former Colonies in Central Asia and Africa which had been theoretically exposed to somewhat participatory government under the “rule of law”? Where are the “morals” abroad to nourish this Sisyphean effort? Where are the dormant “politics” seeded?
What good has that openness accomplished amongst the labyrinthine situations right this minute in tribal Iraq and Afghanistan, and tottering unpredictably among the knife-edged factions in Pakistan….PLUS after a solid decade of direct and continuing spillage of American blood and mountains of treasure on that repellent, infertile soil half a world away?
I salute Ronald Reagan for sending a missile to MG’s palace.
This is true American leadership which Tyrany will respect.
Today, we have a Softie, cuddling President, who see nothing, do nothing,
& can do nothing President in office.
The world of the Tyrants & Dictators are not High School Debating Society, good for election rhetorics.
No wonder, the world does not respect us.
“genuine democracy” according to Obama of course has to be in line with his Muslim faith, and is exemplified by the state of Chicago where he learned about such things as a “community organiser”.
The European Union´s reaction to Gaddafi´s killing of hundreds – if not thousands – of innocent demonstrators has – if possible – been even more impotent than the American:
http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/02/european-union-unable-to-reach-common.html
The more I learn about the Middle East the more I’m led to conclude that it is a lost cause. There is an inbred animosity to all things western, women’s rights, the rule of (man made) law, freedom of conscience, religion and the press, civil rights, gay rights, etc., etc. It is an ideological sink hole that needs to be isolated, contained and allowed to fester within until it eventually renders itself harmless.
They hate us. They hate the Jews. They detest all other religions and the “decadence” prevalent in non-Muslim societies. The majority of Muslims in Muslim countries have stated their preference for Sharia law which mandates stoning for adulterers (often rape victims), amputations for theft, honor killings (condoned murder within a family group) and death for apostates, all anathema to modern Western sensibilities. To believe that the West can somehow overcome this deep a chasm is far more the product of an innate, sometimes dangerously naive, Western enthusiasm and optimism than an exercise in what is achievable and how to achieve it.
Fortunately it would be fairly easy to achieve if the West did not have their collective heads buried up their rear ends immersed in the “Green revolution.” The Middle East lives and dies on the exploitation, or lack thereof, of the world’s supply of fossil fuels. The “Green Revolution” preceded by years of environmental despotism has severely curtailed exploitation of that resource which mounting evidence indicates is in abundant supply right here in America, both on and off shore. Bluntly put, the zealous, decades long, overbearing campaign that makes environmental considerations the paramount issue, above virtually all others, has now resulted in what any high school student paying attention could have predicted years ago, the utter and potentially disastrous mutual dependence between Middle Eastern nations that hate the West to the very depths of their souls and the West so desperately in need of the fuel to supply the energy that keeps their diminishing and increasingly fragile economic engines running; an economic marriage made in hell.
So, here we sit, with oil, gas, coal, a nascent alternative energy industry and location, development and extraction technologies vastly improved and refined over decades, ready, willing but not able to bring this resource to bear to resolve both our domestic economy and energy dependence problems in one fell swoop. And then there’s the neglected “child,” Nuclear which supplies over 78% of the energy needs of France and, if it disturbs you, no CO2 emissions. Yeah! It will take time but that will be the case no matter when that 1st step is taken and the longer we continue to drag our feet the worse this is going to get. What will it take? Will $5.00/gallon do it? How about an EMP over the east coast? Will going Green ease the pain; clean air over a waste land?
Here’s one amateurs scenario; a wish list of sorts:
1. Obama announces a complete lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling and the creation of a new collaborative environmental/energy organization for the purpose of responsible development and exploitation of all domestic natural gas, oil and coal reserves and a statement of intent to make available all improvements in the relevant technologies and any excess production to friendly, developing countries at free market prices.
2. Obama creates a Congressional investigative committee, call it the “House Un-American Activities Committee,” for the purpose of ferreting out all Muslim sympathizers and extremist collaborators within the Federal Government, Law Enforcement and the American military.
3. Obama imposes restrictions on immigration from all Muslim nations.
4. Obama withdraws America from the UN Human Rights Council.
5. Obama demands specific UN reforms as a condition for continued participation in what long ago became a rogue organization largely controlled by the 57 (sound familiar) “nations,” including Palestine, that comprise the OIC.
6. Obama declares a new “Manhattan Project” to accelerate development and deployment of a missile defense system.
What do you think are the chances but what would likely be the initial result after all the screeching, moaning and groaning sure to follow?
Here’s a hint: George Bush lifted the moratorium on off shore oil drilling, step 1 above, in July of 2008. Check out the result though not likely attributed to George by the MSM.
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=crude-oil-brent&months=60
@lolly:”Actually, I think we are all remembering the euphoria of the democratic uprising in Iran which was quickly hi-jacked by the Ayatollahs”
Iran wasn’t “hijacked”. The result is what the people wanted. Autocratic rule by ayatollahs is the objective of democracy in Muslim countries. Democracy is wanted just long enough to vote itself out of existence. The muslims prefer the Ayatollahs – it’s clearly set down in the Quran. They have no need for our form of freedom which allows blasphemy and sin to proliferate. For a Muslim, the ideal country is Somalia, with no government, no taxes, and the authority of the local ayatollah. And that’s what we’re going to get if we keep encouraging democracy in Muslim countries.