Wilson’s Ideal of a “shining city upon a hill” is Lost Among Modern-day Democrats

Oct 2004           

Liberty is no longer the focus of liberals. That’s why they’re so severely off-footed on the War on Terror. Do you think FDR - Father of the modern-day Democratic Party - would have acted with any less vigor after an attack upon this country? How about JFK? We nearly had a civilization-ending nuclear-showdown over the installation of a few missiles. America lost over 400,000 people in World War II. Yet no one decries Kennedy or Roosevelt as warmongers.

By liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, millions of women now enjoy civil rights such as universal suffrage, education, and the right to drive and work. These are solid, liberal ideas. You would think the liberals would applaud Bush as a freedom fighter for bringing democracy to the Middle East. Instead, because of partisan politics and their weak-kneed far-left constituencies, Democrats complain about the War on Terror, tacitly helping the terrorists with their rabid negativity.

Which brings me to my main point. Up until the early 1900’s America’s foreign policy was that of our nation’s father, George Washington. Disliking the “balance of power” politics which dominated old Europe, he correctly concluded that America would do better to avoid such costly military adventures.

In 1914 because of an assassination of a meaningless crown prince, Europe embroiled itself in the “war to end all wars.” America, happily un-involved, looked on in vague interest - fervently glad to be an ocean away. During the next three years, Europe wasted an entire generation of young men upon the muddy fields of Flanders and France.

Yet in 1917 a Democratic president convinced his Republican-majority Senate to enter that same, odious war.

Why?

Woodrow Wilson was our most liberal president. Profoundly idealistic, he was the very first president to call America a “shinning city upon the hill.” He believed that “a steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations.” Because no democracy had ever attacked another democracy, he concluded that the more democracies there were around the world, the more peaceful the world would be. In asking congress to go to war, he stated, “The world must be safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty.”

The bizarre truth is George Bush is promoting Wilsonian-liberalism when he liberated Iraq. The rape and torture chambers are gone. The million people who were murdered by Saddam’s regime have been avenged. Iraqi women work and vote, little girls attend school, all while enjoying civil liberties they could only dream about a decade ago.

Wilson would have applauded such a noble venture. He said about our involvement in World War One that, “We are glad to fight for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of the German people.”

The champion of liberalism was “glad” to fight for democracy even as America suffered 200,000 casualties. Yet today’s liberal decry the liberation of Iraq.

Please read that again. “Liberals decry liberation.” Isn’t that an odd sentence? Shouldn’t it make one pause?

If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq, the Dems would be signing his praises. Yet because a Republican began the war, they demand a withdrawal in Iraq – a move that would be sure to plunge that country into a repressive, religious bloodbath. All the gains for women’s rights would have been lost. Yet they beg the President Bush to engage in Darfur. Now, in my opinion we should something about Rwanda where nearly a million people were slaughtered in the late 1990’s. But it is the height of hypocrisy to say we should help Darfur or Rwanda, yet criticize our efforts in Iraq.

Democracy is hard – no doubt about it. But if it takes root in Iraq, that country will become a beacon a hope, spreading freedom throughout a troubled region. But the sad fact is that liberty is no longer the focus of liberals.

Americans everywhere vowed they would never forget 911. Three years later, and we have already forgotten.

Abraham Lincoln and the War on Terror