Freedom:
The Views of President Bush & Others

by Alan Singer with Alan Shapiro

To the Teacher:

President Bush's second inaugural focused on his view of "the force of human freedom." The readings here offer a substantial excerpt from the president's speech, followed by sociologist Orlando Patterson's critique and then statements about freedom from various well-known people over the centuries. Questions for discussion follow each reading. Suggested class activities conclude the materials.

Reading 1:
Excerpt from President George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address

January 20, 2005

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. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth. Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time.

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. This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own wayÖ.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 causeÖ.

America has need of idealism and courage because we have essential work at homeóthe unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty. In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act and the GI Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our timeÖ.By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.

In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character-on integrity and tolerance toward others and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. The edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran and the varied faiths of our peopleÖ.Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love.

Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time. From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

For discussion

Before examining President Bush's speech analytically with students, you might
begin with questions to help students clarify what the president is saying.

1. To whose "reign of hatred and resentment" might the president be referring?

2. What connection does the president see between a "reign of hatred and resentment" and "the survival of liberty in our land"?

3. What connection do you think he sees between "peace" and "the expansion of freedom in the world"?

4. What is our nation's "mission," according to the president?

5. How does he propose that the nation carry out this mission?

6. What, according to him, is America's "unfinished work"?

7. What was the Homestead Act? The Social Security Act? The GI Bill of Rights? How do you suppose the president would see each as an advance in "America's ideal of freedom"?

8. Why does self-government rely on "the governing of the self"? How does the president think such self-governing developed?

9. What connection does the president see between freedom and "service and mercy"?

10. Why do you suppose he thinks that freedom must exclude bigotry?

11. What further questions do students have about what the president means by any of his remarks? How might those questions be answered?

12. Now that students have some clarity about the president's remarks, what do they think about any of them? Where do they agree or disagree and why?

Reading 2:
Excerpt from "The Speech Misheard Round the World" by Orlando Patterson, professor of sociology at Harvard University

Op-ed in the New York Times, 1/22/05

Promoting freedom, of course, is a noble and highly desirable pursuit. If America were to make the global diffusion of freedom a central pillar of its foreign policy, it would be cause for joy. The way the present administration has gone about this task, however, is likely to have the opposite effect. Moreover, what the president means by freedom may get lost in translation to the rest of the world.

The administration's notion of freedom has been especially convenient, and its promotion of it especially cynical. In the first place, there is no evidence to support and no good reason to believe, that Al Qaeda's attack on America was primarily motivated by a hatred of freedom. Osama bin Laden is clearly no lover of freedom, but this is an irrelevance. The attack on America was motivated by religious and cultural fanaticism.

Second, while it may be implicitly true that all terrorists are tyrants, it does not follow that all tyrants are terrorists. The United States, of all nations, should know this. Over the past century it has supported a succession of tyrannical states with murderous records of oppression against their own people, none of which were terrorist statesóArgentina and Brazil under military rule, Augusto Pinochet's Chile, South Africa under apartheid, to list but a few. Today, one of America's closest allies in the fight against tyranny is tyrannical Pakistan, and one of the biggest trading partners is the authoritarian Communist regime of China.

Third, while the goal of promoting democracy is laudable, there is no evidence that free states are less likely to breed terrorists. Sadly, the very freedoms guaranteed under the rule of law are likely to shelter terrorists, especially within states making the transition from authoritarian to democratic rule. Transitional democratic states, like Russia today, are more violent than the authoritarian ones they replaced. And even advanced democratic regimes have been known to breed terrorists, the best example being the United States itself. For more than half a century, a terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, flourished in this country. According to the FBI, three of every four terrorist acts in the United States from 1980 to 2000 were committed by Americans.

The president speaks eloquently and no doubt sincerely of freedom both abroad and at home. But it is plain for the world to see that there is a discrepancy between his words and his actions. He claims that freedom must be chosen and defended by citizens, yet his administration is in the process of imposing democracy at the point of a gun in Iraq. At home, he seeks to "make our society more prosperous and just and equal," yet during his first term there has been a great redistribution of income from working people to the wealthy as well as declining real income and job security for many Americans. Furthermore, he has presided over the erosion of civil liberties stemming from the Patriot ActÖ.

In the 20th century two versions of freedom emerged in America. The modern liberal version emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice. It is the version formally extolled by the federal government, debated by philosophers and taught in schools; it still informs the American judicial system. And it is the version most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries.

But most ordinary Americans view freedom in quite different terms. In their minds freedom has been radically privatized. Its most striking feature is what is left out: politics, civic participation and the celebration of traditional rights, for instance. Freedom is largely a personal matter having to do with relations with others and success in the world. Freedom, in this conception, means doing what one wants and getting one's way. It is measured in terms of one's independence and autonomy, on the one hand, and one's influence and power, on the otherÖ.It is not that Americans have rejected the formal model of freedomóask any American if he believes in democracy and a free press and he will genuinely endorse both. Rather it is that such abstract notions of freedom are far removed from their notion of what freedom means and how it is experienced.

For discussion

The following questions aim to help students clarify their understanding of Patterson's op-ed article in the New York Times.

1. Patterson offers three examples to support his claim that the president's discussion of freedom is either "convenient" or "cynical."

• The president said that the reason for the 9/11 attacks was Osama bin Laden's and Al Qaeda's "hatred of freedom." What does Patterson think motivated the attacks?
• What examples does Patterson offer to support his claim that the U.S. has supported tyrants and tyrannical states?
• What examples does he offer to support his view that "the very freedoms guaranteed under the rule of law are likely to shelter terrorists"? (Students might be reminded that the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil before 9/11 was committed by Timothy McVeigh, an American convicted of blowing up a federal office building in Oklahoma in 1995, killing 167 people.)

2. To counter the president's view that "freedom must be chosen and defended by citizens," Patterson states that the Bush administration is "imposing democracy at the point of a gun in Iraq." What evidence do you think he might cite to support this argument?

3. How does Patterson rebut the president's statement that he is working to "make our society more prosperous and just and equal"? (On the Patriot Act, teachers might find useful material for students in "Civil Liberties and Terrorism," which is available on this website.)

4. What are the "two versions of freedom" that Patterson says emerged in 20th century America? According to him, which version is the one "most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries"? Which is the one he thinks most Americans actually experience daily? Do you agree or disagree with Patterson? Why?

Comparing the views of Bush and Patterson

Bush and Patterson express contradictory views on a number of key issues.

1. Is the U.S. always against tyranny?

Bush declares an "ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world"; Patterson declares that the U.S. has a history of supporting "a succession of tyrannical states with murderous records of oppression against their own people," that it does so today, and that Bush simply ignores inconvenient realities.

You might consider assigning individual students and/or small groups to investigate what role, if any, the U.S. may have played in supporting Augusto Pinochet in Chile. (Pinochet is accused of many human rights violations by today's Chilean government.) Or students might research U.S. policy toward apartheid South Africa during the period when Nelson Mandela was imprisoned. Students might also inquire into the nature of governments in Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt as well as those Patterson names, Pakistan and China. Are these governments tyrannical? How? If they are tyrannical, why does the Bush administration have friendly relations with each?

2. Does the U.S promote democracy, including in Iraq?

Bush says he believes that "freedom must be chosen and defended by its citizens." But Patterson argues that the Bush administration isn't adhering to this ideal: It "is in the process of imposing democracy at the point of gun in Iraq." What evidence is there for Patterson's claim? What evidence might Bush cite that the Iraqi people are choosing freedom and democracy for their future? (In connection with these questions, teachers might find it useful to refer students to readings in the most recent sets of materials about Iraq available on this website.)

3. Do Bush administration policies promote greater justice and equality?

What evidence might Bush offer to demonstrate that his administration works to "make our society more prosperous and just and equal"? What evidence might Patterson offer to demonstrate that Bush administration policies are making our society less so?

4. Does the American idea of "freedom" include political participation?

Patterson states, "The modern liberal version [of freedom] emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice." But, he says, most Americans view freedom as having been "radically privatized." As a result, participation in politics, civic participation, and "the celebration of traditional rights" don't get the attention they used to. What evidence would support Patterson's view? Oppose it? How do you suppose Bush would view the distinction Patterson makes?

Reading 3:
The many meanings of freedom

In his second inaugural address, President Bush used the word "freedom" 27 times. But what exactly do people mean when they use the term? Keep this question in mind as you examine the following chronological list of quotations about freedom. Also remember that it is we humans who give meanings to words, not dictionaries. Nor do lexicographers assign meanings to words; instead, they record our uses of words and prepare definitions based on their findings. In short, "freedom" does not have some "real" or "correct" meaning; "freedom" has only the meanings we give it. Words don't mean; we do.

Euripides, Greek dramatist (484-406 BC). "Greeks were born to rule barbarians,Önot barbarians to rule Greeks. They are slaves by nature; we have freedom in our blood."

Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman statesman (106-43 BC). "Freedom is participation in power."

Christian New Testament, Galatians, 5:1. "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

Samuel Adams, American revolutionary leader (1771). "The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought."

James Madison, United States President (1788). "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Lord Acton, English historian (1877). "Liberty, next to religion, has been the motive of good deeds and the common pretext of crime, from the sowing of the seed at AthensÖAt all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities."

Rosa Luxemburg, German socialist (about 1900). "Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently."

Rabindranath Tagore, Indian philosopher (1861-1941). "He only has freedom who ideally loves freedom himself and is glad to extend it to others. He who cares to have slaves must chain himself to them. He who builds walls to create exclusion for others builds walls across his own freedom. He who distrusts freedom in other s loses his moral right to it."

Woodrow Wilson, United States President (1913). "American industry is not free, as it once was free; American enterprise is not free; the man with only a little capital is finding it harder to get into the field, more and more impossible to compete with the big fellow. Why? Because the laws of this country do not prevent the strong from crushing the weak."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, United States President (1934). "The freedom guaranteed by the Constitution is freedom of expression and that will be scrupulously respected-but it is not freedom to work children, or to do business in a fire trap, or violate laws against obscenity, libel and lewdness."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, United States President (1941). "[We] look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expressionóeverywhere in the world. The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own wayóeverywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want-whichÖmeans economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peaceful life for its inhabitantsóeverywhere in the worldÖThe fourth is freedom from fear, which meansÖa world-wide reduction of armamentsÖin such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of aggression against any neighboróanywhere in the world."

Theodor Adorno, 20th century philosopher (about 1950). "people have so manipulated the concept of freedom that it finally boils down to the right of the stronger and richer to take from the weaker and poorer whatever they have left."

Martin Luther King, Jr., American Civil Rights leader (1963). "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressedÖ.Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro."

Ronald Reagan, United States President (1985). "We stand on the threshold of a great ability to produce more, do more, be more. Our economy is not getting older and weaker, it's getting younger and stronger; it doesn't need rest and supervision, it needs new challenge, greater freedom. And that wordófreedomóis the key to the Second American Revolution we mean to bring aboutÖ.Let us resolve that we will stop spreading dependency and star spreading opportunity; that we will stop spreading bondage and start spreading freedom."

Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor, New York City (1994). "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."

George W. Bush, United States President (2005). "In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistenceÖ.By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear and make our society more prosperous and just and equal."

Discussion

1. Consider the different kinds of freedom addressed in the quotes offered here, among them: Galatians, 5.1 (spiritual and religious freedom); Madison (political freedom); Luxemburg (freedom of thought and speech); Wilson (economic freedom); Roosevelt (freedom from fear of attack); King (freedom from social, economic, and political oppression). Note, too that some freedoms are directed at being able to do something, like speak freely, while others are freedom from something, like economic oppression.

2. Discussion in pairs: Have each student choose a partner to discuss which statement about freedom comes closest to his or her own beliefs. Each student should have one to two minutes to explain his or her choice. Remind students that when they are in the role of the listener, their goal is to focus their complete attention on the speaker and listen in interested silence. The pairs might then be given another few minutes to discuss their responses.

3. Divide students into groups of four. Give the groups a set amount of time in which to discuss which freedom statements they agree and disagree with. Do students agree about some statements? Why or why not? Ask each group to name a person who will report the group's findings to the whole class.

4. Have students examine the freedom statements closely and then respond to the following questions.

• Do you think if President Madison were alive today he could identify some current abridgements of the "freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power"? If so, what would they be?
• What examples can you think of to support Lord Acton's view that freedom's "triumphs have been due to minorities"?
• Explain Tagore's comment: "He who cares to have slaves must chain himself to them."
• Would President Wilson still find that "the laws of this country do not prevent the strong from crushing the weak"? Explain.
• Only Giuliani links freedom with authority. Do you agree with his statement? Why or why not?

Writing

*Write your own definition of freedom. Then explain in one well-developed paragraph why this definition deserves the support of lovers of freedom.

*Select one of the freedom statements to support or to oppose in one well-developed paragraph.

Panel discussion

Have the class select four students for a 20-minute panel discussion of the most important meaning to give freedom today. Follow the discussion with a class critique.

Class magazine

Having read about, examined, and discussed a range of ideas about freedom, the class might be interested in preparing a magazine with articles contributed by all students. Articles could address such issues as the following:

• great historical achievements in the history of human striving for freedom
• setbacks in that history
• examples of freedoms gained as a result of the efforts of minorities
• struggles for economic and social freedom
• President Roosevelt's fourth freedom, one the world has not attained

The magazine might also include:

• the top three freedom definitions as determined by class vote (with an accompanying explanation)
• illustrations and cartoons
• a timeline
• brief biographies of noted--and perhaps not so noted--people who have contributed to the human struggle for freedom
• articles on current struggles for freedom.

A student editorial board might oversee the project. The resulting magazine might be duplicated and made available to all students and teachers as well as to parents.

We welcome feedback on this lesson. Please email us at info@morningsidecenter.org.

Back to top