George W. Bush on his second inaugural address, Egypt, and more
Editor’s Note: In our March 14 issue, we had a piece by Jay Nordlinger: “43 and His Theme: A visit with George W. Bush.” This week, he is expanding the piece in his Impromptus. For Part I, go here.
Bush’s second inaugural address was highly controversial. The Left didn’t like it — basically because it came out of Bush’s mouth. The Left wouldn’t have liked it if Bush had read the Democratic platform.
The Right didn’t like it either. “Utopian,” many conservatives said. “Unrealistic. Wilsonian.”
Let me refresh you on what Bush said that day:
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.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. …
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. …
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America’s influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause. …
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. …
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
Today, at the Bush Center, in Dallas, I say, “You still believe it, don’t you?” “Very much so,” says Bush.
He then says, “We got an interesting challenge in the post-presidency. One way to put it is, Are you going to be a person trying to rewrite history, which is a futile task? Or do you want to be a person who, as best you can, tries to shape history? And the answer is we do, here at the Bush Center.”
By “rewrite history,” Bush means “influence how your time in office is remembered.” By “shape history,” Bush means “try to help people now and in the future.”
The center’s Freedom Hall, Bush says, “is symbolic of my desire to continue to help people realize their God-given right, which is to be free.”
Was he surprised at the negative reaction to his second inaugural address? “Yeah, I was surprised. I shouldn’t say surprised — I guess I was pleased, in a way, for the speech to have gotten the reaction it did, because it was provocative, I thought in a good way. It got people thinking. I mean, how can you not be for the ending of tyranny?”
Bush continues, “What’s interesting about the debate is that people tend not to listen to the whole spiel. People pick out what they want to hear.” In his address, he did not mean that the United States should ignore its interests. “I don’t think it’s a zero-sum game: free societies or American interests. Matter of fact, I think they’re aligned.” Freer societies are in the American interest, he says, and a boon to American security. “And, of course, we have allies who aren’t as free as we want them to be. But the alliance gives us an opportunity to nudge toward freedom.”
Back to the matter of “evolution”: “As I mentioned to the Lost Boys, it takes time for freedom to evolve. This is a long-term proposition. It’s not instant. … But each generation has an opportunity to help advance civil society and free society, and that’s what we’re doing here.”
Now, “is it a massive project? No. We don’t have the power of the presidency. On the other hand, we do have the capacity to begin to shape lives, one at a time, and that’s what we’re trying to do.”
#share#
‐For all these years, Jimmy Carter has been known as “the human-rights president.” This bugs me. I tell Bush this. I say, “There are other human-rights presidents.” “There are,” Bush agrees. “Ronald Reagan. George H. W. Bush. I think every president has a sense of the power of human freedom. All presidents react to the circumstances they’re in, some predictable, some unpredictable.”
He gives me a little history: “For me, the freedom agenda became extremely clear right after September the 11th. I mean, the immediate focus was of course, How do we protect ourselves from another attack? The long-term focus had to be the root causes of radicalism, and the frustrations that caused 19 fairly well-educated kids to come and murder 3,000. I came to the conclusion that forms of society matter. And one reason people were frustrated is that nobody ever listens to them. There’s a group of elites that dominate their lives. And the more educated people have become in the 21st century, the more frustrated they grow, because nobody seems to care what they think. Witness Egypt.”
Bush then talks about “kids from Tahrir Square” who came to the center. “This is one thing we want to be known as: a place where people who are seeking freedom, or have sought freedom, or want to learn about freedom, can come.”
So, he had these young people from Tahrir Square, who had protested in the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 (also known as the January 25 Revolution). “They were full of vim and vigor. They were, like, on top of the world. These were very well educated people who had spent a lot of time in Tahrir Square and were part of the group that toppled Mubarak” — Hosni Mubarak, strongman of Egypt for 30 years.
“The first question I asked them was, ‘Are you going to try to reconcile? Are you going to understand that the toppled power structure ought to be treated with sympathy?’ And the answer was no. They wanted revenge. I didn’t argue with them. I just thought it was a mistake. I thought that the Mandela model would be better for healing society.” (In post-apartheid South Africa, they had a famous, and successful, Truth and Reconciliation Commission.)
The Egyptian students certainly wanted help: help from Bush, help from the United States, help period.
“What was apparent to me,” says Bush, “was that a closed society has no freedom bench.” (This is a sports metaphor, for those who might be curious.) “There are no people who can come and say, ‘I want to seize this moment.’” In Egypt, “there was no viable opposition except for one group: the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, when there was an election, I wasn’t surprised that the only organized opposition won, because these young people who had helped overthrow Mubarak had no understanding. They’re smart, they’re capable, they handled the negative [i.e., the toppling of the strongman], they just couldn’t figure out the positive, which is, What do we do?”
So, “this caused Laura and me to think about how we can help.” They came up with the Women’s Initiative Fellowship, aimed at building woman-to-woman networks in the Arab world.
“I believe that women will lead the democracy movement in the Middle East if given a chance,” says Bush. “So part of what we’re doing here is to enable women. One of the real challenges is, How do you make an impact as a former president? How can you impact things in a way that is beyond holding a meeting?”
He’s got leverage, I note. “Some leverage,” he responds. “Not nearly as much as people think, but leverage. The power of ideas.”
About woman-to-woman networks, Bush says, “They’re basically non-existent in the Middle East. They’re existent here. One quip would be, Not a lot of Junior Leagues in Cairo.”
Bush asks, about his own initiative, “Will it have an impact? We hope so. Is it measurable? Only in the number of women on the network, but at some point in time, I hope, as a result of our mentorship and helping women connect with women, someone will emerge and say, ‘We’ve had enough, and we’re going to be part of a movement.’ That has certainly happened in Burma.”
The Bush Institute had a program for young Burmese leaders, or would-be leaders, concentrating on liberal democracy, economic freedom, and sound government. Bush’s friend the Dalai Lama spoke to the participants.
To read about the Women’s Initiative Fellowship, go here. To read about the Liberty and Leadership Forum — the program in which the Burmese participated — go here.
On the subject of Burma, I say, “Aung San Suu Kyi must help.” She is the great Burmese democracy leader, daughter of the national hero, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, etc. “No question,” says Bush, “she’s a great role model.” But “again, there is not a smooth path to a flourishing Burmese democracy.” It’s going to be, it has been, very hard.
At least no one can say that Bush & Co. are not playing a part. Join us tomorrow, if you like, for Part III. Thanks for reading.