How George W. Bush Redefined American Freedom

[admiralsnackbar]

by James Bovard, Posted December 11, 2009 George W. Bush is gone from Washington but his legacy, like an abandoned toxic waste dump, lingers on. Like President Franklin Roosevelt before him, President Bush helped redefine American freedom. And like Roosevelt’s, Bush’s changes were perversions of the clear vision the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us.
What did freedom mean in the era of George Bush? In Iraq in September 2004, the U.S. military constructed Camp Liberty, a tent compound to house Iraqi detainees next to the Abu Ghraib prison. (The torture scandal and photos had been revealed in late April.) Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller declared that Camp Liberty and other changes in the treatment of Iraqi prisoners were “restoring the honor of America.”
“Camp Liberty” was typical of the rhetorical strategy of the Bush administration: empty words in lieu of basic decency and honest dealing.
From the beginning, President Bush invoked freedom to sanctify his war on terrorism. In his Oval Office address on the night of September 11, 2001, Bush declared, “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” He pronounced authoritatively on the motives of the attackers even before the FBI and CIA knew their iden ies. He never offered evidence that that was al-Qaeda’s prime motivation.
Bush rarely missed a chance to proclaim that the war on terrorism was being fought to save freedom — either U.S. freedom, or world freedom, or the freedom of future generations. In 2002, he proclaimed, “We are resolved to rout out terror wherever it exists to save the world for freedom.” He contrasted freedom and terror as if they were the two ends of a seesaw. Because terror is the enemy of government, government necessarily becomes the champion of freedom. But this simple dichotomy made sense only if terrorists were the sole threat to freedom.
Once Bush proclaimed that freedom was his goal, then all opponents automatically became enemies of freedom. In the first presidential candidates’ debate with Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush explained away the fierce opposition to the U.S. military in Iraq: “They’re fighting us because they’re fighting freedom.”
In 1776, “Let Freedom Ring” was a response to the ringing of the Liberty Bell after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In contrast, those attending the 2004 Republican National Convention waved signs proclaiming, “Let Freedom Reign.” That was the phrase that Bush scrawled on a piece of paper in June 2004 when National Security Adviser Condi Rice informed him that sovereignty in Iraq had been transferred to Iyad Allawi, the former CIA operative Bush had chosen to head Iraq’s government. Supposedly, it took only a mere signing of a piece of paper by the U.S. occupation authority for Iraqis to have sovereignty — even though an American puppet remained at the head of the government, and even though U.S. military forces continued bombarding civilians in cities throughout the country.

Military power and freedom
For Bush, military power was practically freedom incarnate. He informed Congress in 2002 that the “Department of Defense has become the most powerful force for freedom the world has ever seen.” In his 2002 State of the Union address, after bragging about victories in Afghanistan, he proclaimed, “We have shown freedom’s power.” In an April 2003 speech to workers at the Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio, he declared, “You build the weapons you build here because we love freedom in this country.”
For Bush, the Pentagon budget was perhaps the clearest measure of America’s devotion to freedom. At an April 9, 2002, Republican fundraiser in Connecticut, he bragged that “my defense budget is the largest increase in 20 years. You know, the price of freedom is high, but for me it’s never too high because we fight for freedom.” And if the government seized all of every citizen’s paycheck — instead of only 38 percent of it — and used all the revenue to bankroll foreign military conquests, Americans would have absolute freedom.
Bush often spoke as if all he needed to do was pronounce the word “freedom” and all humanity was obliged to obey his commands. He declared in July 2003 that, because of U.S. military action in Iraq, people were “going to find out the word ‘freedom’ and ‘America’ are synonymous.” Freedom, Iraqi-style, apparently meant giving the U.S. military the right to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians and to obliterate the core of cities such as Fallujah. But the details of U.S. action in Iraq were irrelevant because of the transcendent goal Bush perennially proclaimed.
In his 2004 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Bush declared, “I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom.” That was a formal renunciation of much of what America had once stood for. James Madison, the father of the Cons ution, warned in 1795, “Of all enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.” But, from Bush’s view, U.S. military aggression is as much a force for liberation as any political or religious ideology ever claimed in the past.

Limiting government power
Bush declared on the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that “there is a line in our time ... between the defenders of human liberty, and those who seek to master the minds and souls of others.” But if the United States claims the right to attack the people of any foreign regime that refuses to swear allegiance to the latest U.S. definition of freedom or democracy, the world will see America as the aggressor shackling the minds and wills of people around the world.
The more nations that America attacks in the name of liberty, the more foreigners will perceive America as the greatest threat both to their peace and self-rule. Not surprisingly, Bush’s policies resulted in a collapse in the world’s respect for the United States.
In the 18th century, “The Restraint of Government is the True Liberty and Freedom of the People” was a common American saying.
But for President Bush, freedom had little or nothing to do with limits on government power. Bush told a high-school audience in 2002, “I will not let — your Government’s not going to let people destroy the freedoms that we love in America.” In a 2003 speech at the Bonaparte Auditorium at FBI headquarters in Washington, Bush declared, “For years the freedom of our people were [sic] really never in doubt because no one ever thought that the terrorists or anybody could come and hurt America. But that changed.” Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge reflected the at ude of the Bush administration when he announced, “Liberty is the most precious gift we offer our citizens.” If freedom is a gift from the government to the people, then government can take freedom away at its pleasure.
Respect for individual rights is the bulwark of freedom. Bush proudly declared in 2003, “No president has ever done more for human rights than I have.” But, in order to defeat terrorists, he claimed the right to destroy all rights by using the “enemy combatant” label. Justice Antonin Scalia rightly noted in 2004, “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.” But this was a luxury that American could no longer afford, at least according to the administration. The Bush administration fought tooth and nail to preserve the president’s boundless power to strip people of all rights on the basis of his mere assertion. The administration continually dragged its feet with respect to obeying Supreme Court decisions that limited the president’s power.
The Founding Fathers sought to protect freedom by creating a government of laws, not of men. But Bush freedom required the president to rise above federal law. The Justice Department advised the White House that the president’s power to authorize torture was not constrained by the federal statute book because of “the President’s inherent cons utional authority to manage a military campaign against al-Qaeda and its allies.” Justice Department memos from Bush’s first term (released this past March) make it stark that the president’s brain trust believed that the Cons ution was as archaic and irrelevant as a covered wagon.
On the home front, Bush freedom meant “free speech zones” where demonstrators were quarantined to avoid tainting presidential photo opportunities. Bush freedom meant allowing the National Security Agency to vacuum up Americans’ email without a warrant. Bush freedom meant en ling the Justice Department to round up the names of book buyers and library users under the USA PATRIOT Act.
Bush freedom was based on boundless trust in the righteousness of the rulers and all their actions. Bush offered Americans the same type of freedom that paternalist kings offered their subjects in distant eras. But Bush’s supposedly lofty intentions were no subs ute for the Cons ution and the rule of law.
Freedom must not become simply another term for politicians to invoke to consecrate their power. Rather than stirring patriotic pride, Bush’s invocations of freedom should have set off Americans’ warning bells. It remains to be seen how much lasting damage he has done to Americans’ vocabulary and political understanding.
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
This article originally appeared in the September 2009 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.



http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0909c.asp

[EVAY]

I agree that many of the freedoms that Americans had taken for granted prior to 9/11 were trampled under the Bush presidency, and most of them were denied outright through the Patriot Act. That Act was what trampled the right to assembly, to free speech, to privacy within our communications. The American people went along with it out of fear. It was disheartening to see.

It also strikes me that, while all that happened under the 'small government' mantra of a Republican Administration, the Republicans these days are all up in arms over the Democratic intrusions into other choices, i.e., health care, etc.

I think that what you are pointing out is that in America and in Europe as well, what are traditionally known as 'civil liberties' are under attack. And you are right.

[FromWayDowntown]

There is an increasingly prevalent notion that ceding civil liberties is an acceptable path to freedom (or safety) and that concerns for civil liberties in this time and place are either trifling or misguided, since they will frequently require arguing in support of the civil liberties of supposed/suspected terrorists. I don't happen to think that the erosion of civil liberties in the guise of protectionism is an acceptable choice. I also don't think one's right to the protections of long-established civil liberties should depend upon the extent to which the government is willing (or even able) to vilify the target. But I sense that I'm among a dwindling number of people who share those views.

[admiralsnackbar]

There is an increasingly prevalent notion that ceding civil liberties is an acceptable path to freedom and that concerns for civil liberties in this time and place are either trifling or misguided, since they will frequently require arguing in support of the civil liberties of supposed/suspected terrorists. I don't happen to think that the erosion of civil liberties in the guise of protectionism is an acceptable choice. I also don't think one's right to the protections of long-established civil liberties should depend upon the extent to which the government is willing (or even able) to vilify the target. But I sense that I'm among a dwindling number of people who share those views.

While I hope you aren't, I think (as was the case with McCarthyism) that rank-and-file Americans won't take issue with the recent depredations on liberty until enough of them are touched by their aftershocks. As Obama seems to be proving by his inaction on this score, there must be too many political advantages to be harvested from things like the Patriot Act for politicians to freely renounce them.

[Wild Cobra]

While I hope you aren't, I think (as was the case with McCarthyism) that rank-and-file Americans won't take issue with the recent depredations on liberty until enough of them are touched by their aftershocks. As Obama seems to be proving by his inaction on this score, there must be too many political advantages to be harvested from things like the Patriot Act for politicians to freely renounce them.

That's right, show your ignorance with the term "McCartyism."

Maybe you should read up on the facts of who chaired what committee and what committee did what, and also about Project Venona. Maybe next time, you wont use that incorrect term.

[Wild Cobra]

delete accidental double post please

[ElNono]

That's right, show your ignorance with the term "McCartyism."

Maybe you should read up on the facts of who chaired what committee and what committee did what, and also about Project Venona. Maybe next time, you wont use that incorrect term.

Any comments about the article itself?

[admiralsnackbar]

That's right, show your ignorance with the term "McCartyism."

Maybe you should read up on the facts of who chaired what committee and what committee did what, and also about Project Venona. Maybe next time, you wont use that incorrect term.

Maybe you should try to show me why it's relevant to the discussion to list who did what through X agency when "McCarthyism" is a useful shorthand to explain a movement in which American's civil liberties like the right to privacy and free speech were abridged in order for the government to smoke out potential political enemies.

[SpurNation]

Below is a link to an interesting reply to a not so simple question. And as I've noticed over the years...one's compelling nature is as broad according to one's own definition of civil liberties and the guise of it's nature to secure reason for it's implementation.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/fre...liticalmap.htm

In the case of aggression against America...who's liberty's should be of more concern regarding a politician's decision in the manner being described? Does national security outweigh individual desire?

I would hope not...but...it's apparent it is according to both past and present leaders. And I don't think what Bush started after 9/11 might have been different than what Obama is allowing now if either didn't think it was. Again...not to say it's acceptable but perhaps neccessary. Just like the killing of people during a time of war. Most would never consider it acceptable to kill...but neccessary to survive.

[admiralsnackbar]

In the case of aggression against America...who's liberty's should be of more concern regarding a politician's decision in the manner being described? Does national security outweigh individual desire?

I agree that it's not an easy question to answer, but it's also worth wondering what is essential to being American. Does America survive by sacrificing the legacy of its cons utional liberties? Is what comes out on the other side still America? If not, who are these actions really protecting, and by what right?

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree that it's not an easy question to answer, but it's also worth wondering what is essential to being American. Does America survive by sacrificing the legacy of its cons utional liberties? Is what comes out on the other side still America? If not, who are these actions really protecting, and by what right?

A lot of rhetoric in the aftermath of 9/11 pinned the impetus for the attacks and the justification for a global war on terror on the premise that "they hate our freedom." Certainly, that was not the sole justification offered, but it was among the more frequently offered ideas. I've never quite understood how fighting a war against an enemy that hates our freedoms by, among other things, voluntarily ceding those very freedoms makes any sense.

[Winehole23]

I've never quite understood how fighting a war against an enemy that hates our freedoms by, among other things, voluntarily ceding those very freedoms makes any sense.

It makes sense if people prize physical safety above freedom.

[DarrinS]

This thread is full of drama.


Someone give me an example of how your freedoms have been trampled in such a way that you notice it in your daily life.

[FromWayDowntown]

It makes sense if people prize physical safety above freedom.

True and my point was a broad generalization. I think there's a fundamental disconnect between couching the war in terms of fighting those who oppose our freedoms and scaling back the freedoms in the effort to prosecute that war. But that disconnect is inconsequential, I think, to those who: (a) believe that civil liberties have escaped some rigid textual origin; and/or (b) would cede liberty to an effort to provide safety. I'm not a proponent of either of those viewpoints, so my skepticism about either is, I'm sure, quite evident.

[FromWayDowntown]

This thread is full of drama.


Someone give me an example of how your freedoms have been trampled in such a way that you notice it in your daily life.

Why should it be me? I've never had to deal directly with concerns for my First Amendment rights to free speech, free exercise, or free assembly (among others), but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have an opinion when others face such issues, and it doesn't mean that I can't be pissed when those rights are infringed.

It's a relatively small step from it happening to someone else and it happening to me.

[admiralsnackbar]

This thread is full of drama.


Someone give me an example of how your freedoms have been trampled in such a way that you notice it in your daily life.

I spent about 4 years traveling back and forth between MX City and SA for work, and know for a fact my phone-calls were tapped and my house was put under surveillance during 2006-2007.

[DarrinS]

I spent about 4 years traveling back and forth between MX City and SA for work, and know for a fact my phone-calls were tapped and my house was put under surveillance during 2006-2007.

[admiralsnackbar]

If you know anybody involved in international business, it shouldn't be too hard to avail yourself of more stories like mine, I'm sure.

[Winehole23]

Someone give me an example of how your freedoms have been trampled in such a way that you notice it in your daily life.

Statutory immunity for telecoms re: warrantless government surveillance of the electronic sensorium already conceals a large number of such violations. If it didn't, no Congressional grant of immunity would have been necessary at all.

Also, something doesn't have to a have widely detectable effect to be dangerous and a bad idea. Take the "unlawful enemy combatant designation." Even in the best case, assuming bona fides and a high level of competence, some innocent people will be swept into the system.

And in some future bummer universe, a corrupt or evil man will use the discretion to remove his political rivals or his personal enemies. Similarly, it is hard to imagine that a government of mortals that has given itself unreviewable discretion to surveil society unreviewably, will remain forever chaste in the face of the temptations this kind of power reveals to them. Whatever remains beyond the ken of courts, can never be restrained by them.

Plus which, the notion that the FISA system was broken or unduly burdensome, or somehow otherwise in drastic need of being replaced or sidestepped, is plainly contradicted by its own record, I think.

The notion that patriotism somehow requires us to part ways with the rule of law and our rights unresentfully, and unsentimentally, is cynical bilge; what the were we supposedly fighting for all along, Darrin?

What did our fathers and grandfathers (and even some of our great grandfathers) care so much about, and why did the world so admire it? You seem to rate it as nothing. You single out posters who have stated a wish to preserve the substantive kernel of freedom, for ridicule.

For me rule of law and freedom from arbitrary detention and causeless government intrusion into privacy are a pretty big deal, even if the hanky-panky has been *marginal* to date. I guess pointing out we are losing due process before our very eyes, only sounds like bad campfire strumming to you.

Vive la difference.

Thousands of mistaken or flawed FBI security letters doesn't seem like a marginal deal to me. Just saying.

[boutons_deux]

US govt assuming all citizens are under su ion of guilt and therefore spy-able "in the name of national security" is just fine with the right-wing-nuts.

"What's the problem, if you have nothing to hide?"

But the US govt must not suspect/regulate businesses for fraud, monopolistic/cartel abuses, tty products, environmental destruction because, well, The Business of America is Business (and right-wing-nuts are infinitely pro-business, no matter what)

What's the problem with regulating businesses "if they have nothing to hide"?

ing hypocrites, every last one of them wing-nuts.

[Winehole23]

I think there's a fundamental disconnect between couching the war in terms of fighting those who oppose our freedoms and scaling back the freedoms in the effort to prosecute that war.

Yep.

But that disconnect is inconsequential, I think, to those who: (a) believe that civil liberties have escaped some rigid textual origin;

Keen.

In this respect, the neocons are postmodernists and abandon all hope of revealing the truth. Instead they complain about the fecklessness of language to grasp...arbitrary detention and torture, for example.

and/or (b) would cede liberty to an effort to provide safety.

Done.

I'm not a proponent of either of those viewpoints, so my skepticism about either is, I'm sure, quite evident.

Quite.

+1

[Supergirl]

LOL at the idea that Bush wanted to limit govt's power. His actions demonstrated anything but. He grew the govt enormously while in office. Despite offering empty rhetoric espousing the opposite.

[Winehole23]

LOL at the idea that Bush wanted to limit govt's power. His actions demonstrated anything but. He grew the govt enormously while in office.

It must be pretty bad if you've resorted to dredging up Bush 2000 campaign promises. If Bush had actually shrunk the government, he would've been about the first to do it in a very long time, no?

Despite offering empty rhetoric espousing the opposite.

Sounds familiar.

Would you say Bush's successor resembles the bolded, SG?

[FromWayDowntown]

Sounds familiar.

Would you say Bush's successor resembles the bolded, SG?

True -- to say that this is a single-party enterprise, in terms of implementation and maintenance of these policies, is laughable. The seizure of additional power by the government and the retention of that power thereafter bears no relationship to party affiliation, it seems.

[Supergirl]

It must be pretty bad if you've resorted to dredging up Bush 2000 campaign promises. If Bush had actually shrunk the government, he would've been about the first to ever do it, no?

Sounds familiar.

Would you say Bush's successor resembles the bolded, SG?

Could we stick to ONE TOPIC per thread please? There are plenty of pro and anti Obama threads. This thread is about Bush and an article about Bush's regime.