American Security Through American Idealism

Remembering Michael Gerson by reflecting on the greatest speech he ever wrote.

By
21
President George W. Bush delivers his inaugural address after being sworn in for his second term. (Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)

Last weekend, a memorial service was held for Michael Gerson at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. I never met him, but I often felt I was meeting a kindred soul in his many columns, in the book he co-authored about religion and politics, and in the speeches he wrote for President George W. Bush. I didn’t know it at the time, but it was partly his voice I heard in one of the most remarkable speeches I’ve ever heard. 

It was 35 degrees on the National Mall on January 20, 2005, one of the colder inaugurations on record. I arrived around 9 a.m. and spent hours elbowing my way, block by block, through several hundred thousand people gathered to watch Bush take the oath of office a second time. 

Protesters were out in droves: black-clad anti-globalization protesters in ski masks; anti-war protesters dressed in orange prison jumpsuits reenacting the abuse scandals at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib; and general left-wing anti-Bush protesters. I found my corral way back on the Mall, somewhere behind the reflecting pool, and stood shivering for an hour or more waiting for the ceremony to begin. The inaugural stand was a distant stage.

“I want this to be a freedom speech,” Bush had told Gerson, then his chief speechwriter. Gerson later reflected in his memoir, “He was looking for a summary of everything that had come before, and a fully formed vision of the Bush foreign policy.” Bush and Gerson succeeded. With unmistakable clarity, Bush called out and condemned the evils and dangers of tyranny—elevating the light of freedom by contrast with its opposite.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
21
By
Comments (21)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Slowdave1

    Thank you. Very good article. I had never studied that speech.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    It may take lifetimes, but history will prove George W. Bush right.

    “ Followed to its logical conclusion, the inalienable right of all men to be free implies and requires the end of tyranny in our world.”

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Honest Ape

    Without 9/11 and the military response that animated the electorate, my sense is that the George W. Bush presidency was destined to be as short-lived as his father's. The compassionate conservatism W. promised would guide his agenda had the potential to affect positive change in the U.S.A. just as the Michael Gerson's of that time believed it could. However, there was insufficient buy-in to the idea from W.'s inner circle and the hard work needed to advocate for and implement such a vision didn't materialize. In that context, whatever rhetoric about compassionate conservatism that was woven into first term speeches written by Gerson et al. had no purchase. Compassionate conservatism was never going to generate the energy required to get W. reelected and to inspire a lofty second inauguration address. But a war with Saddam Hussein and other enemies of democracy just might.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Lawrence D'anna

    It wasn’t in spite of his idealism that Bush launched an unprovoked war of aggression, tortured prisoners, and illegally spied on millions of Americans. He did it because of his idealism. His name will forever be associated with the tremendous evil that good, idealistic men are capable of if under a spell of “moral clarity” that’s completely unhindered by humility or doubt.

    Though him, we disgraced ourselves as a country so profoundly that we will never live it down in our lifetimes. We’ve had a long run of bad presidents since Reagan, but Bush was the worst. Even worse than Trump. And it was all in the name of idealism.

    Collapse
    1. Paul Dougherty

      Complete and utter garbage.

      Collapse
  5. Cshafik

    Very good job addressing the critics of American in this part, Dr. Miller.

    "Freedom is the prerogative of a few, the unique heritage of American experience and our European forebears. We cherish the flame, but have no interest in its spread. We respect that other peoples are neither fit nor ready for its blessings and often prefer their ways to ours."

    Collapse
  6. InadvertantObfuscation

    Thank you for your work.

    Collapse
  7. K-Mkimple

    Once again, an insightful and inspiring reflection and instruction from Mr. Miller. If our thought leaders and politicians pointed us towards our better angels more consistently, our nation could better unite around common threads such as freedom and equality. It is good to celebrate the moral vision and aspirations that drove even flawed policies such as the Iraq war, even as we imperfectly look for the way forward in the current crisis of Ukraine. I have been recently reading about the Berlin airlift and how fortunate the world was that a few American and British leaders were in place who combined a moral vision with personal and political courage. I am hoping that even in our current divided politics, both parties will eventually reward leaders who have instincts which unite and inspire as Paul Miller recalls so eloquently, President Bush aimed to do.

    Collapse
  8. Mary Stine

    Thanks for elevating that speech and illuminating it so concisely. I've disagreed with some of GW Bush's policies, but I am so grateful for his optimism and defense of liberty. After four years of a dark narcissistic cynic and bully, GW's sunny patriotism seems a universe away. Say what you will about Biden, but he shares that sunny patriotism.
    The next presidential election will belong to the man, or woman, who can summon that optimism and have a speechwriter who can combine patriotism and sunshine successfully.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    EricRemcon@gmail

    Thanks for the reminder of what politics used to be before the “cancel culture” and “drag queen” era took over. I would not call myself a G.W. fan but based on what I have witnessed since he left, I would probably be a SUPER FAN if he was reinstated now.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    Thanks for reminding me of this speech. Unfortunately, the recent trend of "national conservatism" IMO does even worse than just concede that democracy is only a niche system that works in Europe, the US, and a handful of other Westernized societies, but not for all societies. It actually questions democracy for everyone and claims autocracy, with a ruler over his subjects, is actually the natural state of humanity.

    Interestingly, even the intellectual national conservative Yoram Hazony has basically declared that the Declaration itself was, even for the US, little more than an idealistic tantrum by Jefferson that was fairly quickly superseded by the more pragmatic Constitution.

    (Primary source: this recent excellent treatise on the Hazony school of national conservatism by former Remnant co-host / Jonah disciple, Jack Butler).

    https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2023/02/87589/

    Obama was once accused by the Right of denying American exceptionalism, a claim I now think wasn't quite fair, even though I wasn't a big fan of his foreign policy moves. But it's now a large share of the Right that denies American exceptionalism.

    That being said, I think there's also a lot of evidence that although desiring freedom is part of human nature and not just a Western cultural quirk, that desiring security even at the expense of freedom is also part of human nature (even in the West). Children growing up under authoritarian parenting don't do well, but neither do children growing up in overly permissive families.

    Collapse
    1. Jaybrown

      Thank you for the link! I've been looking for a coherent review and critique of national conservatism. It's loudest proponents don't seem to have any real grasp of what it is intended to profess as a philosophy.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Aylene Wright

        Jack Butler is really growing up and I hope he eventually makes a triumphant return to the Remnant podcast as an honored guest.

        I actually preferred the takedown of Hazony to his recent takedown of BAP, because the latter was really low hanging fruit. But Hazony isn't just a troll, he actually does provide an academic/ intellectual gloss for the Natcons. Rebutting him is really following the TD tradition of engaging with the best argument for the opposition.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Patrick

      Very thoughtful comment. Our illiberal Right does seem to think if we democratically elect a strongman, it’s then cool if that strongman chooses to eliminate elections. I do think some of this is a natural craving for security. But we have to fight that craving, history has taught us repeatedly that it leads to a bleaker human existence. There’s no substitutes for freedom and persuasion.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Aylene Wright

        I also think it's a legitimate criticism that actual Bush Administration policy didn't really honor the idea that "when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own.” I think that part of his speech tends to be overlooked because it seems that was never quite realized in reality.

        Certainly, there appears to have been a failure to appreciate the decentralized nature of Afghanistan. Ironically, although the Conventional Wisdom once was that Afghanistan was the Good War and Iraq was the Bad War, it seems Iraq (although still with a lot of problems) had a better outcome than Afghanistan did.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Scarlette Tarte

          That's correct Aylene, he didn't really honor that idea, and the most obvious example of that came in the west Bank, when the Palestinians had elections and promptly elected Hamas to govern themselves.

          Then everyone forgot that line from Bush, including Bush himself. Who promptly said he would not work with the duly elected party of Hamas. Not that I blame him for that....buuut, if you are gonna say, basically, that we have to get comfortable with the idea that they may not pick leaders and governments we approve of, then, you know...actually get comfortable with it.

          That's the problem with gauzy speeches like this...they come back and bite you in the rear end.

          But agree that we should have a moral Northstar that guides us in a general way. Being FOR people being able to choose their own destinies in a democratic framework is a good one to have.

          Iraq became the one with a "better outcome" if you can call it that because of realpolitik. Iraq means more strategically to the United States, who wanted a foothold in the middle east.

          Afghanistan was never gonna suffice to be that place...it's too poor, and would be a huge financial drain on the US to maintain it's stability. Iraq had oil. It has a means of bringing in income to help support the nation, and is a business to import other businesses with.

          Afghanistan was the "good war" because it was the more "moral" war. Afghan women needed help being freed from the Taliban, they blew up the cultural Buddha's of ancient Afghanistan, they had actually harbored Al Qaeda...so us going in to "save" the Afghan people from a despotic and totalitarian religious regime WAS the morally right thing to do.

          But as we discover with all "good wars", that unless there is a strategic interest...we lose interest pretty fast.

          Collapse
Load More