By Derek Varsalona
On Thursday, Jan. 20, 2004 at 12 p.m., President George Walker Bush was inaugurated as president of the United States for a second term. This made him the 44th president of the United States. Mixed in with the many supporters, I saw many protestors with signs stating, “not my president” or “George W. Bush the real terrorist.”
When it came time for the speech, I was somewhat surprised. Like many of us I had some idea that President Bush would address the ongoing war on terror. But, I personally did not expect him to address the issue in such a libertarian manner.
The president first described freedom as a way to address our vulnerability. “We have seen our vulnerability-and we have seen its deepest sources.” He also claimed, “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.” This shows that President Bush is willing to go on the offense and confront terrorist regimes before they attack America. Would any libertarian disagree with the president that people should be able to choose their own destiny, without living in fear of abuse for making that choice?
Some libertarians might argue that freedom should be chosen by the people themselves, not imposed upon them by imperialistic nations. One could further imply that the way President George W. Bush is trying to bring about freedom is through imperialistic measures, with his war on terror. President Bush would disagree with such viewpoints. In his inaugural address President Bush stated, “America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal is instead to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way.” This shows that President Bush believes that the people should be able to choose their own way of life. Would libertarians disagree that people should be given the chance to taste liberty? President Bush believes that his main duty is to protect the nation from invaders. “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.” Would any libertarian disagree with the president, that the best way to combat terrorism is to be on offense and act on intelligence wisely?
President Bush believes that dissent helps not only to preserve, but also to protect democracy. “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 the 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.” Would any libertarian disagree with President Bush that dissent protects a democracy? Would they disagree with the idea that people deserve to be treated humanely?
As I look back on the previous term of President Bush, one thing sticks out in my mind: He means what he says. President Bush set a simple tone in his inaugural address for people that felt oppressed by ruthless dictators. “All those who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppressors, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” Would libertarians disagree with the idea that America should use their military power to help liberate countries if given the chance? I thought liberation was an ideal that libertarians took to heart.
It is time for libertarians to bury their hatchets, rally around the flag and commend the president on a fantastic speech. When I listened to the speech, it appeared to me to be more libertarian then conservative. It had libertarian ideals in my viewpoint. Libertarians love to defend the first amendment and Americans’ right to freedom of expression. Just why do they bash President Bush, when he uses freedom of speech? I believe that doing so hurts the democratic style of government, does it not? On a final note, I would like someone to respond to my many challenging questions on the libertarian’s stance on the speech.
* Derek Varsalona is a junior communications major and Political Science Minor.