2008 Woodie Awards
Akinronbi: Bush - Destiny's Child
Tayo Akinronbi, op-ed columnist
Issue date: 2/6/06 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
While listening to the president's State of the Union address on Tuesday night, something about the speech struck me as particularly interesting. Delivered in the most eloquent manner I have seen from this president in a long time, a familiar theme from the U.S.'s 19th century foreign policy seems to have re-emerged. Just a few minutes into the speech, it became clear that the controversial notion of "Manifest Destiny" has returned with a new twist.
In the same way that the founding fathers of the new republic saw themselves as "chosen" to spread civilization to the rest of the world, the president now emphasizes a similar notion. In his own words, "our nation is committed to a historic, long-term goal…we accept the call of history."
One can hardly argue with such a noble characterization of America's role in the world. Nor will I ridicule such views as misguided idealism. Instead, I will commend the president for confirming my suspicions and showing us all what little he knows about the real world.
To think of organizing and holding elections in unstable parts of the world as a solution to terrorism is a most naive way of looking at things. Holding elections without first building the infrastructure necessary to sustain a blooming democracy usually leads to more problems. At best, an election enables the will of the people of a particular country to prevail. It is not a guarantee that those attaining power would be tolerant of democratic ideals nor is it an assurance that the new government would be friendly to the West.
This lesson was learned the hard way after WWI when the short-lived League of Nations sought to democratize Germany through elections. Such a superficial democracy only led to the weak Weimar Republic, which paved the way for Hitler to grab power.
A more recent example is the recent results of elections held in Iran and Palestine. Hamas, a well-known terrorist organization, won the January 2006 election in Palestine. And instead of the elections leading to a fresh start for both sides it only led to a further breakdown of Israeli/Palestine peace talks. There is a similar concern as to the likelihood of the same occurrence in places like Iraq. The news that the U.S. replaced a dictatorship with a theocracy will be most unpleasant for American soldiers sacrificing for democratic ideals.
As for the Democrats, I was wholly disappointed with their response to the presidential speech. It's no longer a surprise why they've been sore losers lately. The Democrats seem to have forgotten that it's not just enough to criticize others but you must offer alternatives of your own. To this end they have disappointed many by offering vague responses to real problems. In an attempt to appear centrist they have only succeed in coming across as weak and inconsistent in their views. As a party, they don't have a united view regarding the war, domestic policies, and a host of other issues.
One thing to be admired about the president is the consistency of his views and an undaunted courage to stand up for his beliefs. Such cannot be said for the Democrats, who seem to be preoccupied with seeking a safe stance on every issue. The consequence of always seeking a safe stance is an inability to either please the Democratic base or successfully convince Republicans of your sincerity.
For now, it remains to be seen how all these would factor in the mid-term senatorial elections coming up in the middle of this year.
Columnist Tayo Akinronbi is an NCAS clinical lab sciences major.
In the same way that the founding fathers of the new republic saw themselves as "chosen" to spread civilization to the rest of the world, the president now emphasizes a similar notion. In his own words, "our nation is committed to a historic, long-term goal…we accept the call of history."
One can hardly argue with such a noble characterization of America's role in the world. Nor will I ridicule such views as misguided idealism. Instead, I will commend the president for confirming my suspicions and showing us all what little he knows about the real world.
To think of organizing and holding elections in unstable parts of the world as a solution to terrorism is a most naive way of looking at things. Holding elections without first building the infrastructure necessary to sustain a blooming democracy usually leads to more problems. At best, an election enables the will of the people of a particular country to prevail. It is not a guarantee that those attaining power would be tolerant of democratic ideals nor is it an assurance that the new government would be friendly to the West.
This lesson was learned the hard way after WWI when the short-lived League of Nations sought to democratize Germany through elections. Such a superficial democracy only led to the weak Weimar Republic, which paved the way for Hitler to grab power.
A more recent example is the recent results of elections held in Iran and Palestine. Hamas, a well-known terrorist organization, won the January 2006 election in Palestine. And instead of the elections leading to a fresh start for both sides it only led to a further breakdown of Israeli/Palestine peace talks. There is a similar concern as to the likelihood of the same occurrence in places like Iraq. The news that the U.S. replaced a dictatorship with a theocracy will be most unpleasant for American soldiers sacrificing for democratic ideals.
As for the Democrats, I was wholly disappointed with their response to the presidential speech. It's no longer a surprise why they've been sore losers lately. The Democrats seem to have forgotten that it's not just enough to criticize others but you must offer alternatives of your own. To this end they have disappointed many by offering vague responses to real problems. In an attempt to appear centrist they have only succeed in coming across as weak and inconsistent in their views. As a party, they don't have a united view regarding the war, domestic policies, and a host of other issues.
One thing to be admired about the president is the consistency of his views and an undaunted courage to stand up for his beliefs. Such cannot be said for the Democrats, who seem to be preoccupied with seeking a safe stance on every issue. The consequence of always seeking a safe stance is an inability to either please the Democratic base or successfully convince Republicans of your sincerity.
For now, it remains to be seen how all these would factor in the mid-term senatorial elections coming up in the middle of this year.
Columnist Tayo Akinronbi is an NCAS clinical lab sciences major.