E-Mail This Article to a Friend God and guns Bush’s inauguration speech was a declaration of holy war

GEORGE W. BUSH’S breathtaking arrogance and dangerous simple-mindedness may have reached new heights — or depths — in his Inauguration Day speech. On the surface, his call for " freedom " and " liberty " across the world sounded like lofty rhetoric, the sort of ceremonial hot air likely to be forgotten soon after it’s delivered. But if we have learned nothing else about this president, we certainly should know that when he lectures other countries on what he expects them to do, that generally is just a first step.

Bush delivered his speech at a time when 150,000 American troops are risking (and losing) their lives in Iraq, and just hours after Vice-President Dick Cheney rattled his saber at Iraq’s giant neighbor, Iran. So when Bush says that " 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, " it would seem to make eminent good sense to try to figure out exactly what he means — and to stop him before he can act.

As we already know from bitter experience, Bush’s idea of supporting freedom and democracy is increasingly close to fascistic. His ideology is a combination of two strains: the small-town Republicanism he absorbed growing up in Midland, Texas, and the born-again Christianity he embraced when he turned 40. Bush’s entire world-view appears to have been shaped by these two experiences — as well as colored by a petulant sense of entitlement derived from membership in the imperial Bush family — and he has devoted much of his presidency to imposing that view on others. His narrow vision, combined with his overweening hubris, calls to mind the ludicrous words of Nebraska senator Kenneth Wherry, who in 1940 said, " With God’s help, we will lift Shanghai up and up, ever up, until it is just like Kansas City. " Fallujah is not like Midland yet, but Bush intends to keep trying.

Critics who possess the maturity and wisdom that Bush lacks were quick to point out the dangers of Bush’s desire to force democracy upon the world. Americans and Iraqis are dying every day so that Bush can hold an election in Iraq on January 30. There is still a possibility that the long-suffering people of that country could have a better life than they had under Saddam Hussein. But they have already paid an incredibly high price for Bush’s vision of freedom, imposed by the barrels of American and British guns. Certainly the families of civilians killed since the war began nearly two years ago — estimated at as many as 100,000 — would dispute the notion that Bush’s messianic adventurism has been worthwhile.

Bush’s vision is at odds with reality in other parts of the world, too. China, an authoritarian dictatorship, possesses one of the world’s worst records on human rights. But as Jimmy Carter’s national-security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has pointed out, in addition to the country’s economic importance, the Chinese government’s cooperation is absolutely crucial in dealing with North Korea, a terrorist regime that is believed to have developed nuclear weapons. Russia under President Vladimir Putin is moving from a rough form of democracy to autocracy. Voices of dissent are being silenced. Yet Putin’s assistance in fighting international terrorism is essential — and that need may compel American officials to look the other way as Putin deals brutally with Chechen separatists, who have carried out terrorist attacks inside Russia.

Russia and China are the easy cases. What would Bush do about Pakistan, a vital ally in the campaign against terrorism? Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, took power in a military coup. By most accounts, if a free and fair election were held in Pakistan, the likely winners would be Islamist extremists sympathetic to Osama bin Laden. That concern extends as well to Saudi Arabia, whose oil is essential for keeping Western economies humming. The corrupt, repressive, deeply unpopular Saudi royal family is, unfortunately, a much-needed bulwark against Al Qaeda — not to mention personal friends of the Bush family. As with Pakistan, pushing for elections in Saudi Arabia would be more likely to result in the ascension of bin Laden’s allies, than in the " freedom " and " liberty " that Bush seeks.

Bush’s evangelical neo-imperialism has outraged the international community and drawn fire from critics at home — from within Bush’s own party at least as much as from Democrats. Indeed, Bush has managed to alienate two distinct wings of the Republican Party: the realists and the isolationists. The latter, personified by paleo-conservative Patrick Buchanan, perhaps need not be taken too seriously, although Buchanan’s warnings about the perils of invading Iraq were as on-target as those of, say, Howard Dean. The former, though, represent the heart of the Republican Party — or did, until Bush drove the GOP off the rails.

Brent Scowcroft, the national-security adviser to George H.W. Bush, has been outspoken in his misgivings about the current president’s aggressive, unilateral foreign policy. Last week, Scowcroft refused to comment on the inaugural address, with an unnamed associate explaining to the Los Angeles Times, " He’s in enough trouble already. " More eloquent than words, one might say. The outgoing secretary of state, Colin Powell, another intimate of the president’s father, has made it clear to journalist Bob Woodward and others that he, too, would prefer diplomacy. Unfortunately, Powell will be replaced by Bush’s compliant national-security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

Thus it was left to a lesser figure among the Republicans’ realist wing, Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and Bush I, to speak out last week. Did she ever. Writing for OpinionJournal.com, the Web site of the Wall Street Journal’s ultraconservative editorial page, Noonan expressed her discomfort with Bush’s oversupply of God and undersupply of humility. " It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike, " she wrote, calling Bush’s freedom crusade " somewhere between dreamy and disturbing. "

It must be frustrating to Bush’s most ardent supporters to watch as the president is criticized for espousing rhetoric not terribly different from that of Democratic presidents such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy — or, for that matter, from that of Republican Ronald Reagan, whose presidency Bush has consciously sought to emulate. But there is no hypocrisy to this. For one thing, Wilson (World War I and the League of Nations), Kennedy (the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam), and Reagan (Central American death squads and the Iran-contra scandal) all overreached on international affairs. It makes no sense to applaud Bush as he seeks to walk a similar path.

More important, Bush is unique in his self-regard and his bullying contempt for the rest of the world. Other presidents have worked closely with our allies. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy all improved our standing in the world. Reagan’s record was more mixed, but even he managed to transcend the limitations of his simplistic ideology by negotiating with the Soviet Union, thus helping to bring about a peaceful end to communism.

Bush, by contrast, has left us isolated and alone, feared but not respected, his call for freedom and democracy viewed — understandably — as just another form of aggression. There is no reason to think that his second-term crusade against tyranny will be any more credible, or make us any safer, than his first-term crusade against terrorism. In the end, the problem with Bush’s speech was not his words, but the actions they herald.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com