Oh Say Can You See

[gilliam]

Michael Ignatieff writes in the *New York Times *about a mission whose outcome is not yet known. It is the American mission to spread the Jeffersonian dream of freedom to the world. He asks two questions: first, whether any set of flawed human beings can set out upon a such a missionary enterprise without being guilty of self-righteousness; second, whether the Americans are willing to pay the high price for this endeavor. (Hat tip: MW)

John F. Kennedy echoed Jefferson when, in a speech in 1961, he said that the spread of freedom abroad was powered by ‘‘the force of right and reason’’; but, he went on, in a sober and pragmatic vein, ‘‘reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men.’’ The contrast between Kennedy and the current incumbent of the White House is striking. Until George W. Bush, no American president – not even Franklin Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson – actually risked his presidency on the premise that Jefferson might be right. But this gambler from Texas has bet his place in history on the proposition … If democracy plants itself in Iraq and spreads throughout the Middle East, Bush will be remembered as a plain-speaking visionary. If Iraq fails, it will be his Vietnam, and nothing else will matter much about his time in office.

Although Ignatieff plainly wants to see freedom spread, one of the sources of his unease is the role of God, or something like it, in the missionary endeavor. How much better it would be, he seems to ask, if any claims to universality or transcendence could be kept out it. Then we could bring the Europeans and the Canadians in on it.

From the era of F.D.R. to the era of John Kennedy, liberal and progressive foreigners used to look to America for inspiration. … For a complex set of reasons, American democracy has ceased to be the inspiration it was. This is partly because of the religious turn in American conservatism, which awakens incomprehension in the largely secular politics of America’s democratic allies. … Ask the Canadians why they aren’t joining the American crusade to spread democracy, and you get this from their government’s recent foreign-policy review: ‘‘Canadians hold their values dear, but are not keen to see them imposed on others. This is not the Canadian way.’’ One reason it is not the Canadian way is that when American presidents speak of liberty as God’s plan for mankind, even God-fearing Canadians wonder when God began disclosing his plan to presidents. …

read the rest:
fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/06/oh-say-can-you-see.html

 

[Brad]

There is no freedom outside of a transcendent, universal, author of life and source of our inalienable rights. Without this, humans will always and inevitably come along to define these rights themselves and, in the process, take away the rights of others.

This is pretty basic and logical, yet there are those that so struggle with the idea of a God of justice that they will long for any way out of this idea, while still longing for the benefits of freedom that the same God of mercy brings.

He may be correct that Canada and SOME European countries will not join the US because of the religious context. But he is completely wrong that any type of long lasting and universal freedom can be successfully pursued outside of these ideas.