Rebunk has been quiet on the inauguration front. I can only speak for myself, but I can guess why. What is there for us to say? Those of us (yours truly) who do not like the President but who do not loathe him thought it a pretty pedestrian and banal speech. Those of us (the other guys) who like but do not love the President I’ll guess thought it was fine but not great. I doubt any of us expect for this speech to be quoted twenty years down the road.

Not surprisingly, Alonzo Hamby has the best commentary I have seen. I am stealing this directly from Ralph Luker's latest post at Cliopatria. He got it from Conservativenet. (Though I’d be wary of calling Lon, probably the foremost historian of American liberalism, a conservative; I doubt he would self-identify as such, even if he occasionally posts his ideas on Richard Jensen’s site. On the other hand -- how can I say this – I think Ken Heineman’s inerpretation is off the deep end.) Here's Hamby's take:

Much of the comment thus far on the inaugural could use a little perspective. Bush is hardly the first American president to proclaim the virtues of democracy. And it seems clear that he uses the word, as Americans invariably do, in the sense of liberal democracy, a creed that reconciles majority rule with individual rights. The proclamation of an American mission to spread liberal democracy in the world is often connected with Democrats such as Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy (did Bush really outbid"pay any price, bear any burden"?), but Reagan staked a Republican claim to it. Bush needs to be understood as the latest comer to a long-established rhetorical tradition.

As for operational meaning, does anyone out there really think that he is going to try to overthrow the government of Pakistan? There is no reason to think that he and Condoleezza Rice do not understand the meaning of such terms as"lesser evil" or that the US in the next four years will rampage around the world. In fact, a"senior official" has identified a hit-list of the world's six most repugnant regimes that we would do well to try to change and have a clear interest in changing. No one can deny that doing something about these six is a big order that probably will not be achieved in Bush's second term, but what is the argument for ignoring them?

The realist tradition in American foreign policy has a long and honorable tradition. I happen to think that it served us pretty well during most of the Cold War, when we faced a nuclear-armed foe. But in today's world, the promotion of liberal democracy seems a pretty good strategy against Islamic terrorism. It won't be easy, but neither was nearly a half-century of containment. And, of course, we need to avoid moralistic hubris.

Let us also remember that realism has its own dark side. If asked to name the most shameful act of American foreign policy in my lifetime, I probably would refer to the decision of Brent Scowcroft and Bush 41 at the end of the Gulf War to encourage the Shia and Kurds to revolt against Saddam Hussein, then to do nothing as Saddam slaughtered them in horrific numbers. It was all about"stability," we later learned, after some embarrassing dissembling.

At this juncture, I'd rather see American foreign policy tied to the banner of liberal democracy, and I'm willing to bet that the administration can manage it intelligently.

The Rebunkers have more than passing interest in Hamby and what he has to say. He was both my and Tootle’s dissertation advisor and he is on Tom’s committee. I count him not only as my valued and foremost mentor but also as a dear friend. I do not agree with everything he says here – I think that the failings of the first Bush administration in Iraq, catastrophic and wrongheaded though they ended up being when all was said and done, pale when compared with sitting back and watching an utterly preventable genocide in Rwanda take place – but both his approach and his style as well as his larger rationale embody the Rebunk ethos. The three of us disagree on much, but the general argument Professor Hamby conveys here seems difficult for reasonable people to characterize as off base. If you want to see the intellectual roots of a trio as ideologically divergent as Rebunk, Hamby’s cogent, sensible, and responsible assessment is a pretty good place to start.

Stephen Tootle - 1/24/2005

I have been thinking the same thing. Something to chew on, at the very least. It will be very interesting to look back on the Bush administration twenty or fifty years from now.

Stephen Tootle - 1/23/2005

Good point.

Rich Holmes - 1/23/2005

Twenty years down the road this idea of an "Ownership Society" could be huge. Here's to hoping it could be huge.

Derek Charles Catsam - 1/23/2005

I think "People Who Know The Banging Of The Swiss Army Knife On The Seminar Table" might be a good subtitle for Rebunk, sort of in perentheses after a colon. I would not want to burden Professor Hamby with that direct an association, however. We are a lot more inclined to say dumb things than he is., and I do not want to embarass him!

dc

Stephen Tootle - 1/23/2005

Instead of Rebunk (taken from Hamby, of course), why not Hambsters? Or People Who Know The Banging Of The Swiss Army Knife On The Seminar Table?