With that speech [i.e., the inaugural offering], President Bush’s foreign policy doctrine transcended the war on terror. He laid down a standard against which everything he and his successors do will be judged.When he goes to China, he will not be able to ignore the political prisoners there, because he called them the future leaders of their free nation. When he meets with dictators around the world, as in this flawed world he must, he will not be able to have warm relations with them, because he said no relations with tyrants can be successful.
His words will be thrown back at him and at future presidents. American diplomats have been sent a strong message. Political reform will always be on the table. Liberation and democratization will be the ghost present at every international meeting. Vladimir Putin will never again be the possessor of that fine soul; he will be the menace to democracy and rule of law.
Because of that speech, it will be harder for the U.S. government to do what we did to Latin Americans for so many decades - support strongmen to rule over them because they happened to be our strongmen. It will be harder to frustrate the dreams of a captive people, the way in the early 1990’s we tried to frustrate the independence dreams of Ukraine.
It will be harder for future diplomats to sit on couches flattering dictators, the way we used to flatter Hafez al-Assad of Syria decade after decade. From now on, the borders established by any peace process will be less important than the character of the regimes in that process.
I mean, I love Austin as much as the next girl (well, OK, a lot more than the next girl), but it has always been my distinct impression that the scope of things you can do with words has been, hmm, let’s say, overstated by his would-be popularizers. Naming ships? Hell yeah. Transforming U.S. foriegn policy by shaking democracy-supporting fairy dust on everything? Not so much. Or maybe we’re on a 40’s crooner tip, with the classic “Wishing Will Make It So”? Seriously, though, does Bobo believe this, or what?
Note to outraged defenders of liberty: I think it would be great if the U.S. stopped coddling dictators in the name of stability or anti-terrorist bona fides, but that’s because I’m a silly, utopian leftist. What’s your excuse?
UPDATE: from the Washington Post, “Bush Speech Not a Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say; Address Said to Clarify ‘The Values We Cherish’” Right.
Brooks is talking about a pefectly ordinary kind of speech-act — the act of making a promise. Promises have all kinds of real-world consequences, don’t they? Or am I being superstitious?
Brooks almost sounds sarcastic. I wish he was.
My guess is that nobody will remember Bush’s speech much past next Tuesday.
By the way, Brooks’ bit is itself a particular kind of speech act, a magical attempt to make Bush into somebody impressive by pretending that he just delivered the Gettysburg Address. I believe this sort of ritual activity is referred to in Sanskrit epic as “Praising the Monkey.”
If Brooks is right, it means the immediate release of all the prisoners held in Guantanamo and every other islet in the shadowy archipelago of detention, doesn’t it?
It means more wars, bombings, murders, oppression and torture.
For the Sake of Liberty.
Against the Enemies of Liberty.
Maybe if he said them backwards, like Zatanna.
It’s says something that Peggy Noonan refuses to sail that far out on the Sea of Hack. Her take on Bush’s declamation: “Seemed to me to land somewhere between dreamy and disturbing.”
As a rhetorician and Crazy Jesus Lady, Peggy recognizes the power of humility. You don’t say “we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.” You lay out a righteous but ambiguous goal; describe how hard it will be to reach, given that we’re all sinners; and cloak progress toward the ends in the mystery of His will.
If, as George claimed, liberty for all humanity is an inevitable consequence of his steadfastcicity, His grace and ‘Murican ideals, why would anyone struggle and sacrifice (i.e., get off the couch long enough to affix a “support our troops” magnet) to bring it about?
Brooks, who recently announced he’s born again (proclaiming that jettisoning secularism was harder that quitting smoking) wrote ad nauseam last fall about how liberals “don’t get it” when it comes to religion and politics.
Heh.
Well, the President’s good friends in Saudi Arabia sentenced 15 people to be flogged just last week for having the temerity to demand an elected government. As of this writing, the inaugural speech has not caused them to reconsider their decision. Maybe sending them another couple of billion dollars’ worth of fighter jets would do the trick.
I know it’s considered poor sport to shoot fish in a barrel…
I just thought of a great e-business opportunity for Belle: a website in which she systematically trashes mainstream conservative columnists every weekday.
No, screw that. Liberal columnists. Conservative readers are easier to please. Fish in a barrel all around.
The site would be called Liberal Liebations. Each columnist would be represented by a Cheap Whine bottle icon with their face as the label.
Belle would be the proprietess, Connie Sewer.
Brooks is right that Bush’s speech will make it even more difficult for the US to look credible when it goes about the normal business of foreign policy and continues to support repressive regimes throughout the world. He’s wrong that it will force the US to do anything different. It will just make us appear that much more hypocritical.
I wrote a brief blog entry on the broader issue of what I find disturbing about Bush’s particular configuration of American nationalism and univerasalism. One should note that the basic content of his speech isn’t all that different from similar Presidential speeches since, well, the beginning of the American republic (I’ve done careful readings of many of them for a book chapter I once wrote on continuities in American foreign-policy discourse). What’s more disturbing is the context and position it represents.
Austin?
I guess that whole “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” didn’t do it for Brooksie.
If those words don’t do it I’m not sure Bush’s Jeebus palaver is going to either.
Rilkefan,
It’s J.L. Austin Belle means, of How to do Things With Words fame. (I personally like Sense and Sensibilia more, but it’s not as widely read.)
(I personally like Sense and Sensibilia more, but it’s not as widely read.)
Not, to tell the truth, that either is a NYT bestseller.
How To Ascribe Super-Powers To Words: Call something a treaty? Maybe an anti-genocide treaty or an anti-proliferation treaty?
Austin…Austen? But anyway, I agree with hobo, there’s almost a sarcastic reading of what Bobo is saying:
“When he meets with dictators around the world, as in this flawed world he must, he will not be able to have warm relations with them, because he said no relations with tyrants can be successful.”
No more looking into Pootie-Poot’s soul.
Brooks is born-again? I thought he was Jewish. Of course he could convert.
On the speech, not that I watched or read it, aren’t American Presidents always proclaiming our devotion to liberty, truth, motherhood and generally bragging about America’s city-on-a-hill type qualities? It never stopped us from funding death squads before, so why should it now?
“…what on earth is David Brooks talking about?”
Yeah, high on wishful thinking.
Sven says: “…Brooks, who recently announced he’s born again….”
He did? Where? Cite, please?
“Brooks is born-again? I thought he was Jewish. Of course he could convert.”
Kind of like joining your boss’ country club as a career move.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-395230,0.html
“If Brooks is right, it means the immediate release of all the prisoners held in Guantanamo and every other islet in the shadowy archipelago of detention, doesn’t it?”
It sure does! Just listen to the speech:
“And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.
…PSYCH!”
As Jon Stewart put it, in the fast, elided voice of the radio disclaimer man: ‘Offer not valid in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, China…’
Bush’s speech is yet another howl from his miserable heart, another dumb kid’s plea to be taken seriously, like Fredo Corleone yelling at Michael “I’m smart too !”
Gary, I working on finding you that cite. Brooks never said “born again,” of course. That’s my hyperbole. But really he did say he’s gotten religion, and that it was a lot like quitting smoking.
I think it’s funny, because Brooks has no idea what a Pandora’s box he’s opening when he aligns himself with the religious right. Just like Bush has no idea what he’s alluding to when he references Dostoevsky’s The Possessed.
By Austin, she must mean Jane Austin — rumored to be Bush’s favorite author. I loved Winchester Park and The Persuader, but most of all that great Western novel about the rancher-farmer wars, Fence and Fencibility.
Her home page:
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk/austin/
Here’s the antidote to Brooks’ read of the speech.
Kevin Drum notes that many Bush aids AND Bush41 are saying he was just talking smack. I guess David Brooks is implying Papa Bush lied?
Am I getting senile or wasn’t Jimmy Carter visciously ridiculed by conservatives for making human rights a centerpiece of American foreign polity? Or was the reason they hated him because he was sincere about it instead of just talking out of his ass like Tex Masculine - the regular-folk Andover pom-pom boy?
Am I getting senile or wasn’t Jimmy Carter visciously ridiculed by conservatives for making human rights a centerpiece of American foreign polity? Or was the reason they hated him because he was sincere about it instead of just talking out of his ass like Tex Masculine - the regular-folk Andover pom-pom boy?
Well, dammit, I can’t find the smoking quote. I might have been in something I read off-line.
It was in an interview and may have been a wry Brooksian reference to this article, where he describes himself as a “recovering secularist.”
As usual, in lecturing lefties about religion he demonstrates he knows next to nothing about it. He thinks he’s discovered the Rosetta stone of Bushian rhetoric:
Many Americans have always sensed that we have a transcendent mission, although, fortunately, it is not a theological one. We instinctively feel, in ways that people from other places do not, that history is unfulfilled as long as there are nations in which people are not free. It is this instinctive belief that has led George W. Bush to respond so ambitiously to the events of September 11, and that has led most Americans to support him.
I can’t claim to be a theologian, either. But I remember enough about the Baptist sermons from my youth to know that messianic proclamations have to be tempered by contrition. Elsewise, you risk the heretical sin of pride.
That’s why Noonan feels disturbed by the inaugural address. There’s a lot of religious symbolism in support of the Bush Doctrine, but zero reference to the sins we’ve committed (or, indeed anything about the war). And despite the disclaimer about God choosing as He wills, Bush turns right around and declares that “we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.”
Brooks should ask himself why the biggest cheers for the speech are coming not from the pious, but from self-described ex-Marxists.
Belle, can I have a pony, too?
Thanks for looking, Sven.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review