One of the charges that has been leveled against President Bush is that of inconsistency (If I'm not mistaken, I've leveled the charge myself). He campaigned on the idea that we needed to be a humble nation and not impose our values on the rest of the world. He specifically attacked the Clinton idea of Nation Building.
Well as the saying goes, "That was then, this is now."
At the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman makes an interesting argument that rationalizes away this apparent conflict. He makes comparisons to other war-time Presidents Lincoln and Wilson. After the carnage at Gettysburg, President Lincoln (our greatest president, despite what you might hear around the South) had to make the war about more than just preserving the Union. And hence the war became about preserving freedom.
In a similar transformation, according to Friedman, President Bush has been pushed by the war to accept nation building. This is a little facile. For one thing, the connection between invading Iraq and rebuilding it is only tenuously connected to the enemies that attacked us on September 11, 2003. Secondly, as even Mr. Friedman comments, Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address himself. President Bush isn't doing that so much, is he? (While we are the subject, have you ever heard the old Bob Newhart routine "Abe Lincoln vs. Madison Avenue?" Brilliant.)
Anyway worth considering, but I don't think Mr. Friedman's argument holds water. Marmalade maybe.
No comments:
Post a Comment