Jay Nordlinger heard this in Davos at the World Economic Forum:
President Bushs inauguration speech last week marks a consistent evolution of U.S. policy. He spoke of Americas mission to bring freedom in place of tyranny to the world. Leave aside for a moment the odd insistence by some commentators that such a plea is evidence of the "neoconservative" grip on Washington — I thought progressives were all in favor of freedom rather than tyranny. [Go ahead — read that line again. You know you want to.] The underlying features of the speech seem to me to be these: America accepts that terrorism cannot be defeated by military might alone. The more people live under democracy, with human liberty intact, the less inclined they or their states will be to indulge terrorism or to engage in it. This may be open to debate — though personally I agree with it — but it emphatically puts defeating the causes of terrorism alongside defeating the terrorists.
Secondly, by its very nature, such a mission cannot be accomplished alone. It is the very antithesis of isolationism; the very essence of international engagement. It requires long-term cooperation.
And it is based on enlightened self-interest. Freedom is good in itself. But it is also the best ultimate guarantee that human beings will live in sympathy with each other. The hard head has led to the warm heart.
None of this means the hard head wont still be applied. America, as is perhaps inevitable being the worlds only superpower, who in the end is expected not just to talk about the worlds problems but to solve them, approaches all issues with a propensity to question what others assume, treat the pressure groups with resistance, and ask others to share responsibility, as well as demand it of America.
But no one could say the inauguration speech was lacking in idealism.
Lets make the British P.M. a Knight Commander of the American Empire. (Oops, I shouldnt have let the secret neocon plan out of the bag!)