The Inauguration speech of George Bush was filled with the rhetoric of freedom and liberty. Unfortunately it is at odds with the actions of the Administration in the last four years. Making it difficult to believe that Bush truly understands the meaning of tyranny and arbitrary government.

Another aspect of populist government which has increased to a fever pitch recently is the populists trying to use the bullhorn of government to make people feel good about themselves. The speeches and actions along these lines - aren't pragmatic - but are instead designed to reinforce the popular perception people have of themselves and their nation.

Freedom From Tyranny

I am sure Bush believes his own rhetoric - he is certainly a disciplined campaigner, harping on the same subject over and over - but it is at odds with the practices and actions of the Bush Administration. Like every speech coming out of the American Republican Party, the inauguration speech contains a mention of September 11th. Nothing like invoking fear early on in a speech. Though this time it was given the intangibles of scripture;

After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical. And then there came a day of fire.

We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source.

The biggest threat to freedom remains the domestic government. No matter what the actions of a government to eradicate terrorism, it will only inconvenience the domestic population. Under a careless and unmindful government, it will decrease liberty, remove freedoms, increase the size of government and expand the private component of government. We have seen all these things with the Bush Administration. That the government is constantly justifying their oppressive authoritarian acts with September 11th is a divorcing of rhetoric and action. Ironically Bush links his authoritarian government to terrorists as the excuse for ignoring the Bill of Rights and the rule of law;

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.

There is almost a child-like avoidance of responsibility and blame from the American Republican Party, in both the Executive and Legislative. This is a good example of it. The terrorists made them enact the "USA Patriot Act" and detain people indefinitely. In reality the Republican Legislature, Bush Attorney-General and the Bush Administration deliberately expanded the role of government in manners that transgressed the Bill of Rights.

It must be wondered if Bush truly understands what tyranny is. The US Revolution is a full of the rhetoric and action against tyranny, which ultimately ended with a Republican Constitution and the establishment of a Bill of Rights. The purpose of a Bill of Rights was to establish limits on government authority, and also to make clear when a government has stepped into tyranny. Bush is undeterred though and spouts off more rhetoric;

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.

Bush can start at home. Removing tyranny and arbitrary government in the US is a more noble goal. Currently those being detained in Guantanamo Bay are outside the reach of the Judicial and Legislative arms of government. They are detained on the authority of one man - the President of the United States. They are consequently under the arbitrary will of one person. The United States must revert to John Adams' "nation of laws, not men" - and then Bush's rhetoric might be believed.

The speech is not totally without merit, it mentions that freedom is stronger when it comes from within a people, rather than being forced externally by a nation-state. Maybe Bush learnt something from the effectiveness of the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, over his pathetic actions in Iraq. But the Orange Revolution is nothing new, they happened in Portugal, Spain, Georgia to name a few.

Make Me Feel Good

Political campaigns and politicians have adopted a mix of fear and feel-good in their campaigning and media management. The fear component is often obvious - Sept 11th in the United States, and "children overboard" and interest rates in Australia. The feel-good component is not always as easy to spot as it is intentionally done to reinforce a world-view.

I would classify Bush' speech under this. It has nothing of real substance. Americans like to think they are a generous, caring people who care about the world, and trace their philosophical roots back to the Founding Fathers. This speech fits that bill well. It "fairy cake and fairy bread" to deflect from reduction of liberties, increasing surpluses, fiscally irresponsible government, the mess in Iraq and the fact that Osama Bin Laden is still out and about.

Howard, like Bush, is a populist, though with a keener sense of public opinion than Bush has. Howard was closer to the pulse of the tsunami than Bush was, who's initial actions was clumsy and small. This is not unusual for Bush, his initial reaction to Sept 11th was clumsy and small as well and subject to much right wing media revisionism. Somehow sitting silently in a classroom is seen as "his finest moment" according to "Brock Thurwell".

Howard's outlay of money for the tsunami is another example of feel-good politics. It is two lots of five hundred million, one lot being low interest loans. Together they combine to a "big amount", best spoken with a pinky to the mouth. Australians demand that they over-achieve per capita, and Howard judged that correctly by giving away money other than his own so Australians had a couple of days in the sun where they felt good about themselves.

It is an ironic left-over of the anglospheric value system that Australians see themselves as small. I seriously doubt that an economy in the top twenty in terms of GDP has any right to call itself small. A left over of the Menzonian era is the notion of geo-political isolation. Even though the size of the tsunami response was in part feel-good politics, it is ironic that it destroys the notion of geo-political isolation as the recipient of money was a huge nation of 220 million people who happen to have a large economy that will one day do a "China" or "India". Maybe even keep Australia's commodity based economy chugging along.

Conclusion

I don't think anyone in government is qualified to give a speech on freedom or liberty. The unabridged access to the monopoly on coercion a government has, means instant corruption for any individual. The distance between Bush's rhetoric and actions are an example of this. I believe the time is ripe for a new nation to do a 1776 and redefine the global dialogue on freedom and liberty - if for no other reason than because America's rhetoric and actions are impossible to reconcile.

I don't like government trying to force value systems on the people. Representative government is unrepresentative by definition - and with the addition of factions - they become even more unrepresentative swill. I also don't like the recent manner with which government has moved to public relations mode of fear and feel-good. These are indulgences by populist politicians attempting to consolidate their power through manipulating the electorate and public mass-media opinion. I do not believe they should be permitted a place in government.

cam