Editorial: Bush’s vision of freedom

Friday, Jan. 21, 2005 | 9:41 a.m.

President Bush's inaugural speech on Thursday was addressed more to the world than to the United States. There were references to his vision of creating an "ownership society" in America, but the real passion was reserved for his views of extending freedom around the globe. "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors," the president said. "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. ... 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 words Bush used, by themselves, aren't that uncommon in an inaugural address. Indeed, Democratic Presidents Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy also spoke passionately about the need to promote freedom abroad. Kennedy went so far as to warn other nations "that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty."

What is very different, of course, are the times. Both Kennedy and Carter were presidents during the Cold War, when the expansion of communism was the nation's gravest military threat. Today, protecting the United States against terrorism is the dominant focus of national security. Further, Bush's address is delivered following his invasion of Iraq, a war where the United States virtually went it alone and has paid a terrible price in lives lost. It was encouraging, then, to hear Bush acknowledge that pursuing freedom isn't "primarily the task of arms." Forging alliances through diplomacy will be crucial if we are to effectively place enough pressure on totalitarian regimes to peacefully change their ways.

If Bush tries to carry out this muscular vision of protecting freedom, it will present him with some tough choices, such as how to treat countries that are considered allies but have terrible human rights records. For example, should we continue to stand by this country's biggest Arab ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, where liberty and democracy are alien to the royal family ruling that country? More to the point, are we willing to possibly forgo the sizable amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia if it doesn't embrace liberty?

Additionally, just how will Bush back up his lofty goals by force since our military already has been stretched thin by the war in Iraq? It also bears remembering that our country hasn't always honored our commitment to freedom abroad. Tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurds, encouraged by the first President Bush to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War was over in 1991, were slaughtered by Saddam when our nation subsequently refused to intervene.

Championing liberty is, and should be, an American virtue. Nevertheless, the president will have to be careful so that his stated commitment to liberty isn't hobbled by hypocrisy if our nation continues its friendships with corrupt regimes.