On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.
At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.
We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.
My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.
And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.
Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:
From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.
A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause - in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy … the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments … the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives - and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.
All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.
America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home - the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.
In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance - preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society. By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.
In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character - on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever.
In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.
From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?
These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. 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.
We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.
When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.
May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America.
[ January 20, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
As a sign of respect for the office of the President, I shall not add my MST3K comments. At least not today.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Curious Me wants to know what the protester was yelling.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I am more wary of President Bush now than I ever have been before. That speech sings of further war.
[ January 20, 2005, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It's definitely the presidential address from today. I can verify that, although I cannot clarify what the protester said. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That speech sings of further war."
I believe the preferred term for "war" is "freedom," Scott.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, I will not join your cabal, so stop asking.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."
Hrm. Our army looks pretty damn stretched and weary to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Shush! It was a beautiful speech! No thinking about it! You may as well ask how long the history of freedom is!
Besides, I'm sure his speechwriter didn't mean the army when he wrote "we." He meant, like, the President and the people he knows personally.
[ January 20, 2005, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Sadly, Tom, I'm pretty sure thats basically the response he would give if queried on that point.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Thank you for posting that Jay
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Tom tom tom…… You can’t be positive and optimistic about anything Republican. You must be in the union. Only they are so negative and down with everything the GOP does as evil. I used to be atheist and think as sort of a moderate. But then I read lots of OSC and began going to church and finalized my conservative beliefs. It always baffles me that so many OSC readers are left wingers. So how liberal are you? You want us to be totally socialist? Which of course is just watered down communism. It’s so nice to have the truth on your side.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It's great to have the reference, that's for sure. I think people are having a bit of difficulty responding to it as a Landmark because it is a reposting of someone else's words, and I think that is pretty new for our Landmarks. Usually, when there is material quoted, it is put into explicit context of what it means to the presenter. (Sort of like how we encourage one another to not just post links, but to paraphrase or explain them, to put them into context.)
However, the speech is obviously very meaningful to Jay, and certainly I'd argue for as broad a definition of Landmark Thread as possible. Landmarks are going to be whatever people want them to be. It is kind of hard to react to Jay himself in any way, though, as he sort of is just the invisible-ish filter for GWB's words. Nothing else is presented to react to.
*shrug
Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just look forward to getting to know about Jay more. Call me provincial. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'd just like to point out that there are alot of conservatives on this board who are also wary of Bush.
Hmm, interesting. I attempted to type "weary" but my fingers skipped the "e". I think my fingers are smarter than me.
edit: Pretend this post is above Sara's.
[ January 20, 2005, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah, well, as I was writing, Jay sort of re-visiblized.
Hey, Jay! Nice to see you talk a little about yourself. If you don't mind my asking, which parts of OSC's writings were most critical to shaping your views? What were the primary shapers before that?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
<- nods at Psi's post.
Conservative, and wary. Weary. Whatever.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Tom tom tom…… You can’t be positive and optimistic about anything Republican. You must be in the union. Only they are so negative and down with everything the GOP does as evil. I used to be atheist and think as sort of a moderate. But then I read lots of OSC and began going to church and finalized my conservative beliefs. It always baffles me that so many OSC readers are left wingers. So how liberal are you? You want us to be totally socialist? Which of course is just watered down communism. It’s so nice to have the truth on your side.
Jay, if your goal is to mock others, then carry on. If you wish to change people's minds to agree with you politically, you'd be well served to radically changed your rhetorical style.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
They both work.
edit: Pretend this is above Dag's post. Slow down, people!
[ January 20, 2005, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And then there's OSC's fiscal liberalism that lives alongside his social conservatism. Unfortunate how resistant so many people are to being pigeonholed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nah. This is Jay's thread -- and, besides, I'd like to think that I'm open enough about my political opinions that Jay should be able to get a better picture of them if he put a little effort into it.
I may be expecting too much of him, but I hope not.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This is not a landmark thread.
On the other hand, after a long drought, I think we've finally gotten another onanism thread. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posting this as a landmark raises some interesting questions.
I read this--and I may be mistaken--not as an attempt by Jay to communicate about himself, but as an attempt to force us to give some level of esteem/recognition to the president and his speech. Forcing Hatrack to archive it in the landmark thread.
And I'm not saying this is wrong, but it does give us something to think aout with regard to the quwstion "What is a landmark thread?"
Verrrrry iterrresssting . . .
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: That speech sings of further war.
As I said in another thread, I have to recite the first twelve lins of the Aeneid today and that sentance is very similar to the first line of the Aeneid...
"I sing of warfare and a man at war..."
(sorry, I can't stop myself, I refuse to make a mistake)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yep.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I really think we need a thread about that.
I really do.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I don't consider this a landmark thread, so I don't feel bad about taking a couple of pot-shots at the speech.
quote: America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains (...)
quote:In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
Except at Guantanamo.
quote:"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
Well said.
[ January 20, 2005, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'm not sure how it's a landmark though. I can't decide if Jay has misunderstood the Landmark tradition, or if he just identifies with Bush to such a degree that he feels like posting this speech reveals something essential about him.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I didn’t mean it for a landmark thread for me. I meant it as a landmark for George W. Bush. I can only stand to post so much since I’m pretty conservative and this board has a very left leaning posting. We’re slow at work lately though so lucky for you! Fun!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
A landmark for GWB? Does he post here?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, this board really isn't left-leaning, unless your monitor is slanted.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, it does say something about Jay, regardless. And if he identifies what this is to be meaningful, then I'd give it a vote to be archived.
(And I'm not being snarky. Serious. )
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I don't think Jay understands what landmark means on hatrack. I'm actually not sure why there's been so much discussion on that point. It seemed rather obvious.
Jay, a landmark on hatrack means that you've been here for some round number of posts (normally 1000, 5000, something like that) and would like to share with the community some part of the essential "you" that most people don't know about. A landmark is NOT about someone else, it is entirely about who the poster is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Well said."
Well, he was quoting Lincoln at the time.
But, seriously, this is a very well-written speech. It's a speech I wish someone else could have given, because some of those things needed to be said by someone who meant them.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Pretend my post up there occurred *far* earlier in the conversation. I started writing it, got busy with work, and then made the mistake of submitting it without checking to see if it was still relevant.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I think Ender and Alvin were some of the bigger influences. Treason was another early one I read. Somewhere in there was one of the Worthing books.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Holy cow… I already said I didn’t mean landmark as the gazillionth post. Bush is one of the few Presidents to serve a second term and therefore a sizeable landmark.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You did?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Does Landmark Speech work for you anal liberals who don't like to be associated with anything Bush?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Depends. Are you wanting this to be archived?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does Landmark Speech work for you anal liberals who don't like to be associated with anything Bush?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Dagonee
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
The speech already is.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
*is conservative*
*voted for bush*
*does not consider the speech, nor the thread, to be landmarks*
it is a pretty speech though... but really, when has an inaugural speech meant - well - anything?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Archived? In this database?
What I'm saying, Jay, is that the purpose of a landmark thread is to archive something special about a contributing member of this forum. If you want that speech archived on this forum as *your* landmark, then leave landmark in the title. If you don't want it archived at Hatrack in the landmark threads, I would take the word "Landmark" out of the title altogether. It's ambiguous.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
This explains it best: http://www.righttrack.us/index.php?page=19jun2003 It is my firm belief that if people really knew what Conservatives stood for and what Liberals stood for, Liberalism as we know it would largely disappear from the American scene. To begin with, I found myself agreeing more with the definition found above (from dmoz.org, an open-source search engine) on Conservatism than with the dictionary definition. The dictionary presents an overly simplistic view of Conservatism (and to be fair, also of Liberalism). Essentially, Conservatism is defined as "an orientation which holds that Man being fallible, tradition is an important transmitter of wisdom, and that maintenance of the established order with moderate reform is preferable to utopian idealism and revolutionary change." As a Christian, I know that man is fallible, and agree totally with this concept. That's part of what draws me to Conservatism. However, for me, it's more than that. I'm literally repelled by Liberalism. Why? In my view, it is not simply un-American, it is anti-American. The whole concept of our government is based on the rights of the people, these rights being God-given. They are not bestowed upon us by a benificent government, and said government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. Liberals want to change that. "New Liberalism" calls for more government involvement in protecting personal liberty and social justice, but at the expense of economic liberty. In our capitalistic society where people are free to be as educated, prosperous, and involved as they want to be, this is a cardinal sin. Consider that to be a Liberal, you actually align yourself: With abortionists, under the guise of protecting a woman's "rights" (how about the "right" not to get pregnant in the first place?) Against Martin Luther King, who rather than supporting Affirmative Action, desired to be judged "not by the color of [his] skin, but by the content of [his] character" With Larry Flynt, pornographer, under the guise of "Free Speech" Against John F. Kennedy, Liberal Icon, who advocated reduced taxes With Adolf Hitler, who as Liberals would like to do, took away the guns of his citizenry In practice, the ideology of Liberalism seems to be more about being against Conservatism than it is of actually taking a stand and sticking with it on any particular issue. Remember how incensed the Left was over accusations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas? Why did their tone change when Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton of things any red-blooded American husband would pound him into sand for attempting with their wives? If they are really Pro-Choice, why are they against laws requiring abortion clinics information relating to the effects of abortion, and alternatives to abortion? By campaigning against such laws, they reveal themselves not as Pro-Choice, but as Pro-Abortion. How any rational, clear-thinking, self-respecting individual could be a deep-down Liberal is beyond reason. Think about it!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are so many mistakes in that quotation I don't know where to begin...
Please, don't speak for conservatives. Speak for yourself. You're giving the rest of us a bad name.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Please tell me why liberalism is considered such a bad thing?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Rather than respond, since I'm laughing too hard to itemize all the things wrong with that little rant, I'm wondering why you left this part out when you copied it. From the article you linked:
"Liberals want to change that. "New Liberalism" calls for more government involvement in protecting personal liberty and social justice (we saw this just recently when the Supreme Court struck down the Texas sodomy law), but at the expense of economic liberty."
And now I'm insanely curious how legalizing sodomy jeopardizes economic liberty. Unless there's a really precise tariff somewhere I don't know about...
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Jay, I think the problem is that you seem to think that all liberals hold all of those views, and therefore belong to and support some giant evil regime.
It's the same thing that annoys Christians when non-Christians accuse them of supporting everything any Christian in history has done.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually, some people calling themselves conservatives do believe this. Just as some people calling themselves liberal would also agree with his list.
Such people scare the crap out of me.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Why? In my view, it is not simply un-American, it is anti-American.
O.o
America's constitution is founded on the idea of liberal philosophers is it not?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When did Liberal become a nasty epithet? In the days of FDR being a Liberal was for the good of the people, but now you proudly proclaim yourself a Liberal and it's like you've proclaimed you love genocide or something equally atrocious.
I won't blame the conservatives for that entirely, though I believe they play a role in it, just as the left plays a role in demonizing the right. But I certainly don't think it's a fair title.
I think we should be able to proudly proclaim ourselves whatever we want. And I think it's fairly rude to take the title (liberal) of well intentioned people and turn it into an insult.
"You're a flaming Liberal" should be a compliment, not a joke.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Here’s a good place to go to see what the founding father’s really thought: http://www.americanvision.org "Equipping & Empowering Christians to Restore America's Biblical Foundation"
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Rudy Giulinani and The Governator are both pro-choice, and they both spoke at the RNC.
GOP platform is pro-life. Reason #1 these guys will never be the nominee.
quote: GWB supports affirmative action.
Hummm…. Not like that. He supports it the right way.
quote: JFK
Context context context
quote: John Kerry is a gun owner
Ha! And he came to WV and held up a gun he voted to ban. Ha!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Hey y'all, it is possible to let the thread speak for itself. That's my preference if Jay chooses to keep the "Landmark" in the title. Rather than debate what does and doesn't count as a "real" one, if this is what he wants, then let it go. Just one person's opinion, of course, and having nothing to do with either pillars or the pillory. )
Jay, I really really liked Treason, too. Though the series are wonderful, there is something about his stand-alone works that I find sharp and refreshing.
Did you identify with Alvin and Ender? Were there parallels to how you saw the world around you, growing up? I found adults to be perturbingly saccharine in talking to children, for the most part. It was eerie to see this reflected in OSC's characters.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think I kept pointing it out because I wasn't sure that *he* knew what a Landmark really was.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: "You're a flaming Liberal" should be a compliment, not a joke.
I do consider it a compliment to be called a radical right winger!
And if I get called a bigot it’s even better. Today’s definition of bigot is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal! Fun!
JFK for the 2005 liberal: “Ask not what you can do for your county, but what your country can do for you!”
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'd parody that "aligning yourself with evil" quote, but, that would just cause the thread to degenerate even further.
Jay, it would be EASY to align current GOP positions with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Caligula, Genghis Khan, etc... but it doesn't actually accomplish anything, and making such comparisons are 99% of the time not meaningful, and label the person making the comparisons as not very thoughtful.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Did you identify with Alvin and Ender? Were there parallels to how you saw the world around you, growing up?
Nahhh….. I’ve never meet anyone as smart as Ender. I did like his philosophy very much though. Alvin? I don’t know. OSC characters are always the best at everything. I seem to be ok at a bunch of stuff. I doubt I’ll ever win the Boston Marathon, but an OSC character of me would! Which is great. Always go for the best and what not.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: comparisons are 99% of the time not meaningful
Context context context
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
For the record, I bet no one knows what you're talking about.
It probably doesn't mean that you're smarter than all of us, either.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yeah, context is why your post was not meaningful in the least.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
There are an awful lot of people I respect who consider themselves conservative. People with strong views on family, good government, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and personal liberty. I would have few beefs if such people were running the country.
Posts like Jay's and commentary from Rush and Ann Coulter represent (to me) the extremist, every-problem-is-a-nail type of conservative. It is this type that I fear is taking power.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Original statement:
quote: Consider that to be a Liberal, you actually align yourself: With Adolf Hitler, who as Liberals would like to do, took away the guns of his citizenry
Opinion statement:
quote: comparisons are 99% of the time not meaningful
The context is that liberals like gun control, so did Hitler.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Tom quipped: "I believe the preferred term for "war" is "freedom," Scott."
It really did sound more like a declaration of war against the world than anything else.
"The force of freedom."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So, your argument, then, Jay, is that all liberals want to ban guns, and that this makes them like hitler, correct?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Hitler also liked dogs.
Start rounding up the pet owners...
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Posts like Jay's and commentary from Rush and Ann Coulter represent (to me) the extremist, every-problem-is-a-nail type of conservative. It is this type that I fear is taking power.
I love Ann Coulter. She rocks. Tim Brady, Glen Beck, Hoppy Kercheval, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tony Caridi, Michael Savage.
What a great line up!
I like Zell Miller too!
Yes, I got called an extremist. Sweet. Oh, by the way, it’s not taking power. Its TAKEN power!! Yahoo!!!
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Hitler liked beef too. Round up all the carnivores...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hitler was a vegetarian.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
You see, this thread does put Jay in context. It does help us know him better than just the food threads did.
So, Jay, whaddayawanna do with your life? What are you striving for the best in right now?
As for me, I'm working on getting my head around critical analysis and getting over my chronic fear of accomplishing anything.
[Edit: arrrrr, me 'e's are droppin' like the flies.]
[ January 20, 2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: So, your argument, then, Jay, is that all liberals want to ban guns, and that this makes them like hitler, correct?
No the statement on that website was to be a Liberal, you actually align yourself with Adolf Hitler, who as Liberals would like to do, took away the guns of his citizenry. Consider whatever you want, but if you want to ban guns, you align yourself with Hitler.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I was being presumtuous and snarky, and I'm sorry.
...
Hitler liked carrots, round up all the vegetarians! And feed them to the carnivores!
[ January 20, 2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Heh, it may be because I read Tom's response before reading the speech, but the number of times Bush used the word "freedom" or "liberty" really stood out to me. And in a number of different contexts, too.
I wonder what President Bush would come up with if pressed to define "freedom" in a few sentences. It can be a nebulous concept -- most everybody agree that it's something positive, but I bet that the versions that people on opposite ends of the political spectrum subscribe to may differ vastly from eachother.
[ January 20, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You align yourself with Hitler because that website says so?
Not to mention the fact that you got your "definition of a liberal" from a website called righttrack.com.
[ January 20, 2005, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Tristan, I felt the same way... His speech seemed a bit hollow to me because of it.
i really should try to ignore this guy unless he is talking about food, but, suppose you don't want to ban guns but just LIMIT guns and keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them like convicted fellons or men accused of stalking their ex-wives and young people? Isn't that reasonable?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
An aside - my respect for CT, already embarassingly large, is growing by the minute just in this thread.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"No the statement on that website was to be a Liberal, you actually align yourself with Adolf Hitler, who as Liberals would like to do, took away the guns of his citizenry"
Well, first of all, I haven't seen any proof that liberals want to take away the guns of the citizenry. Most arguments I've seen from liberals have to do with registering guns, licensing gun dealers, restricting assault weaponry, etc.
Second problem here, of course, is that german gun control was undertaken in 1928, by the Weimar Republic... and it wasn't until hitler had a death grip on power in germany, in 1938, that he did ANYTHING about gun ownership in germany. 5 years after he took power.
So, in other words, the context is that you're spinning for all you are worth. Those advocating gun control aren't aligned with hitler, otherwise they would wait until they had absolute power and THEN enact legislation. A more legitimate comparison would be to the weimar republic government, though that wouldn't be a legitimate comparison either.
Using your logic, conservatives align themselves with hitler, who legislated against homosexuals.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Why do you hate America?
Oh that is grand. This from the group where good news for America is bad news for liberal. The economy is doing bad. Great news for liberals. The economy is doing good, bad news for liberals since GOP is in power. Someone dies in Iraq, great news for liberals because they can spin it bad for the GOP. We open a school in Iraq, bad news for liberals since that look good. Afghanistan holds successful elections, bad news for liberals since what we did there was right. If we get hit by another terrorist attack, great news for liberals since that’ll mean Bush and the GOP didn’t do enough to protect us even though the Democrats stood in the way of everything. Anymore almost anything that is good for America is bad for liberals and anything bad for America is great for liberals. Yeah, who hates America. HA!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
CT should have a parade in her honour.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
From page one:
quote:Curious Me wants to know what the protester was yelling.
Do you mean this, Annie?
quote:One protester managed to get within about 150m of the stand, shouting: "Hey Bush, what about the poor? How many have you sent to Iraq?"
Guys, Jay is trolling. He is, in fact, engaging in what used to be the classic definition of troll behavior, back before the script kiddies showed up on the Internet.
I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that these are his real opinions. However, he presents them as evangelical truths: a way to rile up his enemies and impress their women.
By attempting to get him to "see the light," you will only cement his belief that this kind of political ranting is the best way to get attention -- and because his sort of troll always gets their information and their sense of self-worth from somewhere else, even if it's an imagined lurking audience, you won't get through to him this way.
So I would recommend CT's approach, which isn't as subtle as it could be but remains graceful nonetheless. Do not engage him on points he is clearly prepared to "discuss," as this will only generate reams of mindless doctrine copied from other websites. Rather, attempt to engage Jay as a person, distinct from his political opinions.
We do this all the time with people with whom we disagree. The difference here is that Jay is being deliberately impenetrable. But if we reward his deliberate obfuscation with our attention, we only encourage him to remain behind his obnoxious facade.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Y'all are more patient than I am.. I am usually ready to foam at the mouth and growl.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Anyone else think he sounds a lot like Bean Counter/Jar Head/etc.?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Troll or not, I just want to hear discussion about this inauguration speech, which gave me a feeling of horror. He did say freedom, I believe, 21 times, Tom.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: So, Jay, whaddayawanna do with your life? What are you striving for the best in right now?
Do with my life? I’ve got my degree (Computer Engineering) working on a NASA project for JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) which will replace Hubble. Tried to become an FBI agent. Didn’t happen. No big goals I’m striving for right now. Just living live and enjoying. I run a lot. Did the Marine Corp Marathon last October in DC and am going down for the Tampa Bay Half Marathon in February. Also working with my county GOP executive committee, that I’m on, for our Lincoln Day Dinner. I stay active at my church and run its sound room. So I stay pretty busy. Except for slow times at work like today! Fun! Cool?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
There's a sort of generic conservative troll description out there, but this guy has a picture, presumably of himself.
Ah, but the homepage doesn't work.
[ January 20, 2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Actually, now that I think about it, he actually reminds me a bit more of CStroman than BC. What ever happened to him, anyway?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Ahhh. Yeah, I don't know.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I was gonna make the same comment (only less eloquent) Tom, but I realized that Jay's been here over a year. His trolling must have just needed time to gestate. He's not just a troll, he's a troll/cicada.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Just wanted you to know I support you and your viewpoint on most things, Jay.
I am well aware that TomD and Elizabeth and others don't agree, (and I have been around long enough to no longer feel like arguing points) and I respect their right to disagree and have their own opinions. This freedom of speech is part of what makes us America.
But I didn't want you to think everyone was against you on this. (and no, I haven't read the entire thread, due to other things happening in my life today)
Farmgirl
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So, what are you doing with the James Webb Space Telescope Jay? That sounds interesting.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Guys, Jay is trolling.
Wrong again Tom! I’m a conservative 100% through and through. I trust Bush, believe in him, and pray for him all the time. I might not agree with everything he does but I know he knows what is best. Attention? Ha! It’s more fun on the WVsports.com message board where they talk about what the board is for. Here somehow OSC has been transformed into some kind of liberal Mecca where even OSC’s conservative side is no liked much.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Jay, you're a silly, silly boy. But you like SG-1, so you can't be all bad. Just...cool it, would you? Please?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Just wanted you to know I support you and your viewpoint on most things, Jay.
You’re the best Farmgirl! I knew you were pretty conservative and one of the reason I never truly gave up on this board over the years.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Jay, you're a silly, silly boy. But you like SG-1, so you can't be all bad. Just...cool it, would you? Please?
It is pretty cold here today. All week matter of fact.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Wrong again Tom! I’m a conservative 100% through and through."
You misunderstand, Jay. Trolling does not consist solely of making up an imaginary position, although that's a more common modern usage nowadays. You can also troll by being completely honest but deliberately offensive with your comments, which is currently your approach.
I will like you much better if you'd give it a bit of a rest and engage us in actual conversation. You would also, I believe, be pleased to discover how many actual conservatives are on this forum but have been so far avoiding this thread out of fear of being associated with your opinions and methods.
--------
BTW, Elizabeth, I wasn't joking about finding it a beautiful speech. While my cynical side picked up on some of the Orwellian connotations, I think the overall sentiment is a lovely one.
Unfortunately, those Orwellian tones and the very martial, separatist notes being deliberately struck here are a concern to me, not least because Bush appeals most strongly to the segment of the population who is likely to be stirred and excited by that wording without understanding the semiotic reasons why. It does not give me much hope.
[ January 20, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
My Economics teacher let us watch the speech during my economics class, or rather the last ten minutes of it. Then he forced us to watch about 40 minutes of Fox News commentary on it. People if anyone, ever denies that Fox news is anything but a cheerleader network for Bush's administration, or at the very least that it's baised, I will... umm... give them a really nasty mental glare *glare* But seriously now, the commentary consisted of the commentators declaring that the speech was the best they'd ever heard, and taking stabs at various liberals and liberals in general.
[ January 20, 2005, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: So, what are you doing with the James Webb Space Telescope Jay? That sounds interesting.
Well, we’re IV&V here. That’s Independent Verification and Validation. Basically we take all the requirements, specifications, code, tests, and any other stuff for the spacecraft software and make sure they’re not making any mistakes or missing anything. Sort of like that one that went to Mars and they used SI units in one place and English units in another and the spacecraft crashed. Well, that was before IV&V. So.. hopefully we’ll catch that stuff and have a happy successful mission. Plus if you catch these things early on it cost less to fix them. I’d much rather be building stuff or doing things myself. Fun!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: People if anyone, ever denies that Fox news is anything but a cheerleader network for Bush's administration, or at the very least that it's baised, I will... umm... give them a really nasty mental glare *glare* But seriously now, the commentary consisted of the commentators declaring that the speech was the best they'd ever heard, and taking stabs at various liberals and liberals in general.
Fox reports, you decide. I imagine that coming to someplace that just reports news instead of throwing a liberal slant or making fake documents is a big shocker to those used to the alphabet news (ABC, CBS, NBC) and the Clinton News Network (CNN). Sure their shows like “Hannity and Colmes” or “O’Reilly” have bias. But when they do a news report that’s what it is. It’s not how I’d have a GOPNews. But it is nice to have something that’s neutral instead of the main stream liberal media. Go ahead, say it. You don’t think the media is liberal. Ha! Well, just spend a little time here and try to say that: http://www.mrc.org/ Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
And that just reveals how baised you are Jay. Did you not see what I said about the commentary below that comment? They are widely known, to many conservatives as well as liberals, to be extrodinarily baised in their 'news' coverage.
There is some liberal bias in a lot of the media, there is also some conservative bais in some of media. But none of the baises come even close to the bais of Fox News.
[ January 20, 2005, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
New York Times? Were they one of the ones with the reporter who faked something?
So many fake things with these main stream news places.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Did you not see what I said about the commentary below that comment?
Yes, and in my reply I was trying to say that you must not be used to “normal” media since you’re so used to left wing bias in the main stream!
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Then you noticed: all they were doing was cheering for Bush and saying it was the best speech they'd ever heard, and taking pot shots at liberals. They weren't fair and unbaised. If they were fair and unbaised they would NOT have taken shots at liberals or conservatives. They would not have been going on and on about how great the speech was (unless it was really that great, but it wasn't), or at least they would have had two sides, one that loved the speech and one that didn't. But they were. That is heavy conservative bais.
[ January 20, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Gee…. It was the inaugural speech. Not really the time for hate mongering. And would have been praiseworthy no matter who won on FoxNews. Now, if you wanted your typical hate mongering I’m sure CNN and CBS would have been happy to obligate you. So I’ll stand by my point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*whisper* Again, guys, Jay is going to stand on his "points" as long as you engage him on them. Don't bother; he's not willing to have conversations on political topics.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Whether or not it was a 'good' speech I'll not contest. Personally I did not like it, but I am not an expert on speeches. However, it most certainly was not "the greatest speech of our time". Sorry. But he doesn't compare to Kenedy, or Eisenhower, or FDR. Not even close. Whats more, is that there are people who are experts on speeches who are going to be saying that. If they wanted to give truely unbaised commentary you would need to have both sides. You may call it hate mongering, but the simple fact is: to be truely unbaised you have to either show no point of view, or show them all. They were doing neither. They showed a single point of view on the speech. Thus they are baised. Whats more is you say they aren't hate mongering when they are taking pot shots at specific liberals and liberals in general? That sounds like hate mongering to me.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Jay, I came to Hatrack when I was 15 years old in 1996. I was quite the zealous crusader for my conservative political and religious beliefs.
What I've learned in my over 8 years here is that most of the people on the board, the conservatives and the liberals, are older than me, smarter than me, better educated than me, and normally know what the hell they're talking about. I've gained a lot of respect for them and now enjoy getting to discuss things with them, even though a lot of the time we disagree.
Please don't pigeonhole us. I would currently describe myself as a social conservative and a fiscal liberal. You can't align people with one side or the other. Please remember that part of being able to argue with passion here is the added responsibility of promising to listen with respect.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: *whisper* Again, guys, Jay is going to stand on his "points" as long as you engage him on them. Don't bother; he's not willing to have conversations on political topics.
So Tom, you’d rather I change my stands? Flip flop? Oh yeah, I guess that is your party motto. I forgot. Silly me. Guess that is one reason for your uniformed unreasonable hatred of an honest President. I’m glad to stand by my points and not change my core values based on the political wind or whatever is popular at the moment. Leave that to the Clinton’s and I guess you too Tom! Would that mean that for us to have a conversation I have to change my way of thinking? How do you ever trust anyone if you base your conversations this way? Very interesting. I kind of thought we were having a conversation on this today. I apologize it hasn’t been enjoyable for you Tom. Oh well, I’m off to a Hash House Harrier Run in 20 degree weather. Fun fun fun.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: some kind of liberal Mecca
No, no, no, no. You have no idea.
Toronto = Very Liberal
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think the liberal Mecca is Eugene, Oregon. At least, that's where people tell me they're praying towards five times a day.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Awesome, I'm gonna move to Eugene now. I want in on the liberal orgy! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He has nominated Hispanics (Miguel Estrada for federal court and Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General) over less-qualified candidates
Adam, you probably meant "more-qualified," but what you wrote was actually correct about Estrada. He was (and is) highly qualified to be an appellate court judge.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Montréal = Very Liberal
There, fixed that for you.
I wouldn't classify Toronto as "very liberal," though. Of course, I'm "very liberal." Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Anyone else wondering if Jay = BC/JH with a different nick?
Oh, and:
quote:You misunderstand, Jay. Trolling does not consist solely of making up an imaginary position, although that's a more common modern usage nowadays. You can also troll by being completely honest but deliberately offensive with your comments, which is currently your approach.
*posts this again because it needed to be said* TomD
--j_k
[ January 20, 2005, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I had a ***damn vivid dream about the inauguration last night.
Well...ok, not about Bush's. And I was Vice-President... but no matter... Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Heeheh... If it wasn't Bush's, and you were VP, who was the new president? O_o
--j_k
Posted by ravenclaw (Member # 4377) on :
I decided to wander around downtown DC today, I didn't feel like standing in the security line so I watched the anarchist group protest for awhile.
quote:I trust Bush, believe in him, and pray for him all the time. I might not agree with everything he does
Care to give any examples?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Jay, that's very cool that you work on catching mistakes for NASA. I'm glad to hear NASA's working on a replacement for Hubble. Guess I haven't been keeping up with the space news like I should!
quote:An aside - my respect for CT, already embarassingly large, is growing by the minute
Chris, I hear it helps to take a cold shower.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Eh. Anarchist groups depress me. To the extent free speech means anything, it is being outlawed. Too many people use anarchism as an excuse to ignore the law within them. If there is one action sillier than obeying the law for its own sake, it is breaking it. By the time they turn thirty-five, either they have sold out or permanently and semi-voluntarily exiled themselves to political and social irrelevance. The pig who takes bribes from any drug dealer rich enough is doing more good for the cause than any ten of them.
There is an alternative to the futile efforts of directly opposing the corrupt status quo. Build it up, but in such a way as to make it collapse under its own weight.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:it is a pretty speech though... but really, when has an inaugural speech meant - well - anything?
Kennedy in 1961.
As an American, once again, Bush just gave me a free pass to relax. There was no personal call to duty. I don't even have to kill anybody, just sit back and consume and keep my mouth shut. The only thing I have to sacrifice is my dignity in countenancing any invasions he plans.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Chris, I hear it helps to take a cold shower.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Farmgirl,
I think you misinterpret a lot of the "opposition" Jay gets here. Do you believe that Jay is getting dogpiled because he is a conservative? When you say you "support" him, do you mean that you agree with his political views, or do you mean specifically that you find his behavior in the last two or three days acceptable/commendable? I am genuinely curious here--especially given your acknowledgment that you had not read all of this thread, or, I assume, all of Jay's recent posts.
Jay is clearly seeking to bait people, and seems to reserve a special antagonism toward Tom. Is this what you support about him?
-o-
Sara
Just so you know, when I posted about the interesting implications of this thread with regard to our informal definition of a landmark, I was not doing it to bash Jay or to assert that it was not a landmark. Rather, I was genuinely intrigued by what it seemed to me Jay had set out to do. I'm far from being as nice a person as I would like to be, and I am fairly intelligent, but I am not really all that clever--disengenuousness is not something you're likely to see from me. Whatever I say my point of view or my interest is is generally exactly what I mean.
-o-
::tries to follow Tom's advice::
Jay, is your work some sort of internship, or is it your full time career? It reminds me (in general terms only) of my work at Oak Ridge National Lab.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Montréal = Very Liberal
How about
Many Built Up Areas In Canada = Very Liberal
Also
Canada = Very Cold
(I'm also very liberal, twinky, in case there is any confusion . I'm also very very cold!)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Thanks for the text of the speech...I am sure I could have found it somewhere had I cared to look, but it is nice to have it here at Hatrack.
As far as you beliefs, I don't think anyone here cares a bit about what you believe. I know I don't. A lot of us here have a lot of different views on thing, but we get along fine, most of the time.
We have traditions here at Hatrack, and the Landmark is an important one, so some people mistook what you meant, that is all.
So if everyone (or most of the people posting) see to be slamming you, perhaps it isn't your view that are to blame....
Just perhaps it is the sloppy logic, poor grammar, and argumentative language that you use. I hold some fairly conservative values, and some liberal one, and I think BOTH are necessary for the USA to thrive....and that if either one completely won we all would be screwed.
I am just glad that you are not the sole bastion of conservative strength, because if you were we would be in for an even worse ride that we currently are on now.
Kwea
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Shigosei! o_O
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Here's a really interesting analysis of the speech from the Weekly Standard:
quote:Just the Right Amount of God
"WHO IS YOUR FAVORITE political philosopher?" a group of Republican candidates were asked early in the 2000 race for president. And the frontrunner at the time, a Texas governor named George W. Bush, calmly answered, "Christ, because he changed my life."
Well. You could barely hear the other candidates' answers in the crash and clatter of overturned chairs as reporters scrambled to reach the phones and call in the story. Some commentators decided Bush was nakedly pandering to Evangelical voters in a Machiavellian ploy so bold that he should have said his favorite political philosopher was, um, Machiavelli.
Most of the nation's chatterers, however, decided that this wasn't the devious Bush but the stupid Bush. Couldn't he come up with the name of an actual philosopher? Plato had a scribble called the Republic, Aristotle managed to jot down a few notes on politics, and in the long years since the ancient Greeks there have been a few other philosophical types who've set out a thought or two on the political order. A little more study time--a little less fraternizing with his drinking buddies--and Bush might have heard their names while he was an undergraduate, even at Yale.
And then there was the mockery the candidate faced for his confusion of piety with philosophy. The holy name of Jesus doesn't have much purchase on people for whom "Christian" is mostly shorthand for "life-denying bigots who want to burn all the books they're too ignorant to read." Besides, from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible that Bush claims to follow manifests deep suspicion of the philosophical. The Lord will do "a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder," as the prophet Isaiah put it, "for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." If Bush understood the Book of Acts, he'd remember the Apostle Paul didn't have much success preaching the Resurrection to philosophers in Athens.
Bad theology, bad philosophy, and bad politics--this was the high-minded consensus at the time. The identification of Jesus as a life-changing political philosopher was either a stroke of electoral genius, or a mark of jaw-dropping feeblemindedness, or--well, that's always been the problem for Bush's opponents, hasn't it? "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot," John Kerry whined to his aides during the 2004 campaign, and George W. Bush still remains impenetrable to those who persist in seeing him as some impossible combination of Dr. Evil and Forrest Gump. Anyway, the consensus was that he didn't mean--couldn't mean--anything philosophical by his answer to a reporter's question.
Funny thing. On a cold, bright day in January 2005, with the sun off the snow crinkling his eyes, President Bush gave his second inaugural address. And it seems he did actually mean what he had said before. The speech was as clear an assertion of a particular Christian political philosophy as we're likely to hear in these latter days. "We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom," the president declared. "Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul."
There's even a name for this kind of theistical philosophy. It's called natural law. An inaugural address, by its very national purpose, walks the tightrope between powerful abstractions and empty platitudes, and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. "In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak," Bush said, and is that a truth or a truism? A wrenching call to greatness or a self-congratulatory pat on the back?
A little of both, no doubt. But the most interesting things in Bush's inaugural rhetoric are the moments where justifications are offered for the various truths and truisms. The chain of explanation in his speech is always the logical progression of the natural-law argument. "Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals," Bush insisted. And why? Because there is, in fact, a universal human nature: "Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul." If "across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government," the reason must reside in the enduring essence of human beings as simultaneously corruptible and morally valuable: "Because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave."
As it happens, a natural-law explanation carries philosophical reasoning a step beyond the mere assertion of a nature for human beings. The problem for ethics is always how to match empirical and logical claims ("Humans want to be free") with moral claims ("Humans should be free"). And, within philosophy, natural law is a way of bridging the gap by asserting a unity of fact and value--based on the endowment of human nature with moral worth by the model on which humans are based. "From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value," as President Bush explained. And the reason? Well, "because they bear the image of the Maker of heaven and earth."
Now, any philosopher would point out that this is possible only if the moral law itself is real: a set of eternal truths that vary not in content but only in application as the temporal order changes. And, sure enough, there the necessary postulate is in Bush's speech: "Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before--ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever."
And watch it all come together as Bush reaches toward his peroration in the speech's penultimate moment: "When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner 'Freedom Now'--they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty."
So, we've got an enduring and universal human nature ("ancient hope"). We've got final causation ("meant to be fulfilled"). We've got a moral problematic (the "ebb and flow of justice"). We've got intelligible formal causes (the ideal of "liberty" as shaping a "visible direction" for history). And we've even got a prime mover ("the Author of Liberty"). There isn't much more a natural-law philosopher could want in an American president's inaugural address about nature and nature's God. I'd guess not a lot of gloating is allowed around the throne of the Maker of heaven and earth, but somewhere in the vicinity, St. Thomas Aquinas must be smiling.
BUT IN CERTAIN SUBLUNARY REALMS, there are others who are not smiling at all. "Way Too Much God" ran the headline in the Wall Street Journal, over a column in which former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan bemoaned the president's triumphalist religiosity. The speech concerned Bush's "evolving thoughts on freedom in the world," Noonan observed. And "those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty." She had in mind, of course, the curious humility and even melancholy of Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address--as well she ought, for Lincoln remains the high-water mark of presidential rhetoric, and Bush's speech was clearly striving at points to echo its unmatchable predecessor.
And if a solid Republican like Peggy Noonan is bothered by the president's God-besotted, un-Lincolnian immodesty, you can imagine what the reaction was among the president's detractors. But what's missed by all those who unfairly compare Bush's zeal with Lincoln's call to humility is, in part, the timing of the latter, for the end of the Civil War was at hand by the time Lincoln spoke, while we are still in the thick of the struggle Bush describes. Even more, there is a hard edge of determination for victory that runs through Lincoln's speech--a steel in his sadness that gives a hidden force to his demand for national humility. The 1865 inaugural address was not the breast-beating some read in it today.
Perhaps that's why Abraham Lincoln delivered the most theological presidential speech ever given. It is our great national sermon. "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"
In this sense, Bush's speech in the Washington snow isn't theological at all. This is not Christ the sacrificial lamb, or Christ the New Adam who breaks the curse of Original Sin. This is rather Christ the philosopher--and George W. Bush has just delivered the most purely philosophical address in the history of America's inaugurations.
As it happens, the natural-law philosophy the speech asserted has a little bit to bother everyone in it. The president's Evangelical supporters may have been reassured by the public religiosity of the occasion--the prayers, the Navy choir singing "God of Our Fathers," the bowed heads. But the god of the philosophers ain't much of a god to be going home with. A deistical clockmaker, an impersonal prime mover, a demiurge instead of a redeemer: This is hardly the faith Christian Americans imagine the president shares with them. There was not a mention of the Divine in Bush's speech that Thomas Jefferson couldn't have uttered.
Still, all that God-talk--all that natural-law reasoning--was heading somewhere in Bush's speech, and the president's cultured despisers, those who tremble or rage at any trace of divinity in public, are right to be afraid. Just not for the reason they think. It would take an act of perverse will to suppose that the 2005 inaugural address signaled the onset of a Christian theocracy in America. Every rhetorical gesture toward God was either universalized up into a sectless abstraction ("Author of Liberty"? Which faith group can't say that?) or spread down in careful pluralistic specificity ("the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people").
No, President Bush's opponents should be afraid of this speech because it signals the emergence of a single coherent philosophy within the conservative movement. Natural-law reasoning about the national moral character gradually disappeared from America in the generations after the Founding Fathers, squeezed out between a triumphant emotive liberalism, on the one side, and a defensive emotive Evangelicalism, on the other. Preserved mostly by the Catholics, natural law made its return to public discourse primarily through the effort to find a nontheological ground for opposition to abortion. And now, three decades after Roe v. Wade, it is simply the way conservatives talk--about everything. With his inaugural address, President Bush has just delivered a foreign-policy discourse that relies entirely on classical concepts of natural law, and, agreeing or not, everybody in America understood what he was talking about.
In other words, the argument over abortion changed the way the nation speaks of every moral issue. "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies," the president declares--and thereby carries natural law out to the world.
This is a claim about the universal, which the old foreign-policy realists rejected. This is a claim about the moral, which the libertarians despised. And this is a claim about the eternal, which the Social Darwinists renounced. But these older strains of conservatism have lost the battle to set the nation's rhetoric. They are welcome to come along for the ride, but George W. Bush announced, there in the bright cold of a Washington January, that the nation would be moving to the beat of a different political philosophy.
Turns out he really did mean what he said five years ago.
Joseph Bottum is Books & Arts editor of The Weekly Standard.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
My favorite review of the speech, you ask?
quote: Freedom 27, Liberty 15.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Turns out he really did mean what he said five years ago."
Except that thinking there are moral absolutes justified by an eternal God does not necessarily mean that Jesus is your favorite philosopher. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And the idea that following Jesus as a political philosopher would lead you to a natural law philosophy is laughable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, unless you write for the Weekly Standard, obviously. *laugh*
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Nice to see you talk a little about yourself. If you don't mind my asking, which parts of OSC's writings were most critical to shaping your views? What were the primary shapers before that?
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
TomD![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)