American Leadership Still Wants the "City on a Hill"

Over nearly four hundred years, the model of America as interpreted by those in power has not changed much. Both John Winthrop and George W. Bush speak of America's duty in similar terms. Both state that America is a model of order that should be looked upon by the rest of the world. Their concepts of freedom and how it should be obtained and upheld differ, but to them America should still be a servant of freedom. The main thing that has changed over this time is the scale. Winthrop's idea of freedom is confined to his own community setting an example. Bush's idea of freedom is to take the initiative to spread it around the globe.

One major aspect where these two men differ is the concept of America as a chosen nation. Winthrop is completely in favor of this idea. He believes he's doing the direct work of God. It's a Christian model that Winthrop claims to be upholding. It's a model where all men are not created equal, but at the same time the rich should not be too rich and the poor should not aspire to overthrow the rich. The Christian model also preaches a unity in brotherhood. A man may be superior in terms of wealth on Earth, but that does not apply in the glory of God. The chosen nation idea also appears as Winthrop discusses love for enemies. Aside from the fact that Winthrop points directly to the Gospels that this is how enemies should be treated, someone who feels that he is part of a chosen community does not have to feel threatened because to him he has God on his side.

Bush tries to take a nobler stand in regards to America's role in the world. To Bush, America is not a nation chosen by God, but living in a world where God has presented a challenge and it is America that has accepted that challenge and obligation to spread freedom around the world. It is clear that the post-9/11 age and the failures in Iraq are the catalyst for this rhetoric here from Bush. Before his election, the spread of freedom and democracy was not part of Bush's nor the Republican Party's platform. This was an idea that had been previously preached by Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy. Republicans had called 20th Century conflicts like Korea and Vietnam, where this similar rhetoric was used �Democrat's wars'.

Between 9/11 and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush was not using these ideas of spreading freedom as justification. The motivations behind the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were out of America's self interest to protect itself. Using the spread of freedom at the time would have been foolish because America was clearly not acting like a beacon of freedom against terrorism until America was attacked. Choosing to not participate in the fighting of terrorism around the world until it stares you in the face is not the act of America's "great liberating tradition" as Bush puts it.

So when the time comes to invade Iraq, we are doing it for our own protection. We do not want another 9/11 and Iraq is an apparent threat that must be dealt with and the American people sign off on that. When it turns out that the threat is nonexistent and American lives are being lost, something else is needed. This is where we start seeing the freedom rhetoric from Bush. It is not an act of America's great liberating tradition, but an act of political necessity. And the fact that we have now "accepted obligations" by taking on this idea of spreading freedom, we are in greater danger than we started all because of an act of political necessity.

Rhetoric for political necessity is clearly not a new concept because most of what John Winthrop was preaching was good for his own self-interest first and foremost. It is all well and good to stand up and make a speech that says we are the chosen community and all men are not created equal in the eyes of God when you are not one of the lower beings. Winthrop's claim to love enemies is not very genuine either because he expelled his enemies from the community.

Despite their common ground of disingenuous rhetoric Bush's vision is a revolution of Winthrop's American tradition. Winthrop's vision was America being a beacon of freedom to be looked upon. It was something that as recently as twenty years ago was being put into practice by one of Bush's heroes, Ronald Reagan. Reagan used Winthrop as a source of one of his most famous lines, America as a shining city on a hill. Bush's view is in direct conflict because he is not using America as a beacon at all. Bush is offering the countries of the world where freedom is lacking, freedom at the barrel of a gun. It almost seems like an act of a colonial Christian missionary that believed that it was their duty to go to any lengths, even murder, to save a person's soul. I think Winthrop and many since would question Bush on whether or not it is our job to force freedom on people. It certainly is not our tradition. We were essentially isolationists before the twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt was the first American President to even leave the country during a term. Even during the 20th century, our acts were not outside our self-interest. America has never been a nation to run around preemptively liberating people. This is a new concept that is not in step with American history and done for disingenuous reasons.

Any similarity with traditional American values that Bush's vision has exists solely in 20th century tradition. Comparisons are being made now between Bush and Woodrow Wilson because of Wilson's stance after the First World War. The problem with that is that Wilson was really ahead of his time in promoting peace and democracy. His view was to spread those things to create peace. It would be hard to imagine someone like Wilson who had seen the horrors of the First World War be in any rush to go invading foreign countries. It's the total opposite of what this country was founded on. Colonial Americans did not like to be occupied and controlled by the British so they revolted and no country is ever going to perceive and invading force as anything but that, an invader. If the do-it-yourself American tradition means anything than it means that freedom cannot be handed over, but acquired by merit and action. Wilson spoke of making the world "safe for democracy." He did not say anything about forcing democracy on people who may or may not want it. Wilson understood that by making the world safe for democracy he would be letting it develop and take shape on its own, not being forced.

If John Winthrop's city on the hill is the model of traditional American freedom than George W. Bush is out of step with that tradition. Why this country has thrived is because we set our own example. Nobody handed this country over to us from the British. The American tradition was carried on from Winthrop to the American Revolution because it was example setting. The disingenuousness of how Bush reached this philosophy makes it all the more out of step. The American tradition has been dangerously reformed for public relations purposes in the post 9/11 era. Bush is neglecting his own citizens in the process of promoting the grandeur of freedom around the world. It would be consistent with Winthrop to say that the best thing for America would be to take care of America and the example that would set around the world would mean so much more than any occupying force could mean.