COMMENTARY:

Confusion Reigns at Inauguration

Central to the oath of office sworn to by both the Vice-President and the President were the words: "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The cornerstone of this Republic's freedom rests in the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights--as detailed by our founding fathers. Just how do they square with the "protections" enumerated in the Patriot Act(s) and amplified in the Homeland Security Act, or any other terror driven bills yet to come?

We saw a most confident George W. Bush take the oath and deliver an address to this nation and the world. You would expect such an all-powerful personage to exude these traits. Confidence and faith go hand in hand. Both Bush and Carter shared this duality of character strengths in their personas, but Carter's was tempered by a pervasive humility. This was not always the case with Bush in these prior four years.

I followed the Bush address word by word, and took copious notes. Later, I downloaded the complete text--which I have read and read and reread and reread. Concepts of freedom and liberty were central to the speech, but only in the most abstract and obtuse way. I must confess that I was left more that a bit confused-- just where are "we" headed with this "vision thing"? (Kind of the way I felt years back when confronted by his father's "thousand points of light" - and I must point out that I supported him ONCE, too.) What could, would, or should "we" as the remaining global superpower be doing to enhance our security by promoting/encouraging such worldwide freedom and liberties?

Free elections are central to freedom and liberty, but CHOICE also enters into the mix. This administration has a great deal riding on the coming elections in Iraq. While they may be free (or at least freer than those under Saddam), where or what are the choices? Neither individuals nor parties are named, and there has been no campaigning. Rather, the electorate will vote for loosely defined "groups" who will later select specific representatives. This "pig in a poke" indirectness is further diluted by the vagueness of the "pokes." Does this situation meet the historical norms behind OUR understanding of elections, choice, freedom and liberty?

Anybody acquainted with me, or following my columns over this past year and a third; knows that I was underwhelmed by the choices given us in Election 2004. From my perspective, we enjoyed the freedom to pick Brand B, Brand K, or to not vote at all. Some choice! I know there were many hardcore supporters on both sides, but a lot of us were left frustrated on the peripheries. This country, its finances, its currency, and its economic direction need leadership and a plan of action--not open-ended military plans of attack. While it may be good for some businesses, war is really not good business.

The world condemns our military/diplomatic arrogance and our endless global-sucking consumption; while at the very same time, the world depends on US/us to look out for their global interests and to provide a bottomless market for their goods, services, and products. What is wrong with this picture?

The American Experience of our 200-plus-year history has long set the benchmark for freedom and liberty on the planet. Subliminal love/hate envy of our successes and our freedoms of the past is now being supplanted by an overt love-to-hate US/us in these early years of the 21st century. These and many underpinnings of our current situation have got to change, and NOW!

When we depend on about $2 BILLION of new foreign capital a day to keep up our present level of consumptive spending going, when the value and acceptability of our currency is determined by foreign central banks and monopolies, when half of our national debt is held abroad, and when our level of charitable works and aid is nominally determined overseas; are "we" truly free? I'm Fred Cederholm and I've been thinking. You should be thinking, too.