Less Perfect Union: Falling Short

William D. Hartung

February 03, 2005

The World Policy Institute's Hartung thinks President George W. Bush is utterly sincere in his idealistic rhetoric. Yet he pays no mind to the human costs of his unique brand of democracy promotion by gunpoint, says Hartung. And Democrats remain unable to distinguish their foreign policy from Bush's—thus ceding to him the noble goals of fostering liberation and freedom.

William D. Hartung is a senior research fellow at the World Policy Institute and the author of How Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? A Quick and Dirty Guide To War Profiteering in the Bush Administration.

"The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom."  After stopping briefly to admire his speechwriting team's decision to "leave no alliteration behind," I began to ponder what President Bush might actually have meant when he said this in last night's State of the Union address. 

Does President Bush actually believe his soaring rhetoric about promoting freedom and democracy?  Unfortunately for America and the world, the answer appears to be a resounding yes. Bush has convinced himself that America is a force for freedom in the world, with God on its side.  If the actions it takes toward that end happen to enhance U.S. power, or benefit U.S. corporations or help the president's inner circle, so be it.  

Take America's continuing misadventure in Iraq. Bush came late to the "democracy promotion" rationale for intervening there, after his administration's arguments about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's possession of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons fell flat.  But he has clearly internalized this new outlook.  Stubborn facts—like the desire of growing numbers of Iraqis for the U.S. occupation to end, or the rampant corruption in the "rebuilding" process—have no place in the president's new worldview.

Even the staunchest of true believers has to face reality at some point. But when? Will the $500 billion or so the Bush administration plans to spend for military purposes this year (counting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq), plus budget deficits of $400 billion and counting, plus the 10-year, $2 trillion costs of his Social Security privatization plan force long overdue scrutiny of the Pentagon budget?  Will the president come up with a plan for disengaging from Iraq that takes months and years—not years melting into decades?  Not without a coherent opposition movement—ranging from the grassroots to Capitol Hill—to force him to face the facts.

The Democratic response to the president's speech offered a capsule summary of the challenge progressives face.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi outlined a three-point plan for disengagement from Iraq, calling for quicker training of Iraqi security forces, accelerated economic development and greater emphasis on "regional diplomacy" to take pressure off U.S. troops and take the "fuel" out of the insurgency.  While marginally better than what the administration is peddling, to most Americans it will sound awfully similar to the Bush plan.  Likewise, on broader security issues, the Democrats scored a few points by exposing the administration's hypocrisy on critical issues like securing and dismantling loose nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and weapons materials around the world; and failing to adequately protect ports, airline cargo and chemical and nuclear plants in the United States. But there was no overarching theme, no alternative Democratic vision of how best to protect the nation and the world.  

Ironically, the best Democratic phrase of the night on foreign policy, FDR's "freedom from fear," was used by George W. Bush, who has done more to induce fear in the American psyche than any president in living memory. Not only do we need to take back our country; we also need to take back our language.