Sunday, August 21, 2005

Let Freedom Ring

Got up early for the AM run (before the crack of dawn), so I have been thinking. There is a large and fundamental difference between letting freedom ring and letting freedom reign. One puts forward our country as an example and role model for others to follow. The latter suggests we push our brand of freedom on others, not unlike "spreading freedom."

Two questions:

1) Which one (freedom ring or freedom reign) is best for improving the global attitude toward our Nation?
2) Should the USA be in the business of spreading freedom or allowing our domestic actions to speak for us?

If we are to be role models for a global democracy, freedom and liberty, who is to decide which components are worthy of replication in other countries abroad? Like attitudes, being contagious, we have to ask is our brand of democracy worth catching?

We certainly have been spending a great deal of cash pushing our brand of democracy on Iraq and the rest of the world. But really, if we are interested in stopping terrorism, perhaps we invaded the wrong country. If I remember correctly, most if not all of Al Queda were Saudis - the reason we didn't invade Saudi Arabia is that, perhaps, we sold them too many of our F-16.

Rather than continuing on our merry empire building quest as pushers for the American brand of Democracy, I suggest we work on fixing what's wrong internally and ring the bell for freedom letting it peal as a resounding example for others to follow should they choose.

2 comments:

enigma4ever said...

really great post- well written and well thought out....We need regime change....soon...see Words Light Fires- with new republicans that are wavering in this mess...also go back to my site http://watergatesummer.blogspot.com/ I have posted some new August poll numbers that are staggering....Bush only has support in SEVEN states...so I think there is a shift going on.....keep hoping..keep blogging...great blog...

Anonymous said...


FEDERALIST No. 68

The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788.
Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York: ...

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best," yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration. [Emphasis added]

Ha, ha, ha! It's time to start over.

''Spreading democracy'' is like spreading legs, best done with willing cooperation. At the point of a gun there's another name for it.