 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:04 pm Post subject: Natan Sharansky on "DISSIDENT PRESIDENT" |
 |
|
| Quote: | DISSIDENT PRESIDENT
George W. Bush has the courage to speak out for freedom.
BY NATAN SHARANSKY
Monday, April 24, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There are two distinct marks of a dissident. First, dissidents are fired by ideas and stay true to them no matter the consequences. Second, they generally believe that betraying those ideas would constitute the greatest of moral failures. Give up, they say to themselves, and evil will triumph. Stand firm, and they can give hope to others and help change the world.
Political leaders make the rarest of dissidents. In a democracy, a leader's lifeline is the electorate's pulse. Failure to be in tune with public sentiment can cripple any administration and undermine any political agenda. Moreover, democratic leaders, for whom compromise is critical to effective governance, hardly ever see any issue in Manichaean terms. In their world, nearly everything is colored in shades of gray.
That is why President George W. Bush is such an exception. He is a man fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom, its transformative power, and its critical connection to international peace and stability. Even the fiercest critics of these ideas would surely admit that Mr. Bush has championed them both before and after his re-election, both when he was riding high in the polls and now that his popularity has plummeted, when criticism has come from longstanding opponents and from erstwhile supporters.
With a dogged determination that any dissident can appreciate, Mr. Bush, faced with overwhelming opposition, stands his ideological ground, motivated in large measure by what appears to be a refusal to countenance moral failure.
I myself have not been uncritical of Mr. Bush. Like my teacher, Andrei Sakharov, I agree with the president that promoting democracy is critical for international security. But I believe that too much focus has been placed on holding quick elections, while too little attention has been paid to help build free societies by protecting those freedoms--of conscience, speech, press, religion, etc.--that lie at democracy's core.
I believe that such a mistaken approach is one of the reasons why a terrorist organization such as Hamas could come to power through ostensibly democratic means in a Palestinian society long ruled by fear and intimidation.
I also believe that not enough effort has been made to turn the policy of promoting democracy into a bipartisan effort. The enemies of freedom must know that the commitment of the world's lone superpower to help expand freedom beyond its borders will not depend on the results of the next election.
Just as success in winning past global conflicts depended on forging a broad coalition that stretched across party and ideological lines, success in using the advance of democracy to win the war on terror will depend on building and maintaining a wide consensus of support.
Yet despite these criticisms, I recognize that I have the luxury of criticizing Mr. Bush's democracy agenda only because there is a democracy agenda in the first place. A policy that for years had been nothing more than the esoteric subject of occasional academic debate is now the focal point of American statecraft.
For decades, a "realism" based on a myopic perception of international stability prevailed in the policy-making debate. For a brief period during the Cold War, the realist policy of accommodating Soviet tyranny was replaced with a policy that confronted that tyranny and made democracy and human rights inside the Soviet Union a litmus test for superpower relations.
The enormous success of such a policy in bringing the Cold War to a peaceful end did not stop most policy makers from continuing to advocate an approach to international stability that was based on coddling "friendly" dictators and refusing to support the aspirations of oppressed peoples to be free.
Then came Sept. 11, 2001. It seemed as though that horrific day had made it clear that the price for supporting "friendly" dictators throughout the Middle East was the creation of the world's largest breeding ground of terrorism. A new political course had to be charted.
Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.
The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world.
Yet with each passing day, new voices are added to the chorus of that doctrine's opponents, and the circle of its supporters grows ever smaller.
Critics rail against every step on the new and difficult road on which the United States has embarked. Yet in pointing out the many pitfalls which have not been avoided and those which still can be, those critics would be wise to remember that the alternative road leads to the continued oppression of hundreds of millions of people and the continued festering of the pathologies that led to 9/11.
Now that President Bush is increasingly alone in pushing for freedom, I can only hope that his dissident spirit will continue to persevere. For should that spirit break, evil will indeed triumph, and the consequences for our world would be disastrous. |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008281
(On Edit) I should have left this short Bio line on the article:
| Quote: | | Mr. Sharansky spent nine years as a political prisoner in the Soviet Gulag. A former deputy prime minister of Israel and currently a member of the Knesset, he is co-author, with Ron Dermer, of "The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror" |
Excellent book!!
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776)
Last edited by shawa on Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I generally agree with the overall tone of this article with regard to President Bush, I have a HUGE problem with labeling him a dissident.
Webster's: "dissident pres. part, of dissidere to sit apart, disagree. Not agreeing; different, to sit apart, disagree..."
While the definition might fit - somewhat - with the author's thesis, surely there is a better word to describe GWB's vision and integrity to his beliefs. The word "dissident" has been co-opted to the lefties to describe those who oppose Bush (on everything - goes right along with BDS).
Maybe I'm just a nit-picker but this labeling of Bush as a "dissident" affects me about the same way that scratching at a blackboard with fingernails does... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I also believe that not enough effort has been made to turn the policy of promoting democracy into a bipartisan effort. The enemies of freedom must know that the commitment of the world's lone superpower to help expand freedom beyond its borders will not depend on the results of the next election. |
And therein lies the conundrum for the Liberal Democrats who have opted for short-term political expediency in lieu of their responsibility to this nation inherent in their oaths of office. It is to their eternal shame.
As to "dissident"? I can live with that...and it's a thumb in the eye of the entrenched liberal media who appear to be (at least for the moment) in control of the "conventional wisdom". This, too, shall pass.
Excellent article Shawa. Thank you.
Last edited by Me#1You#10 on Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anker-Klanker wrote
| Quote: | | but this labeling of Bush as a "dissident" affects me about the same way that scratching at a blackboard with fingernails does... |
You have to understand Sharansky. ( I soooo admire the man!) I would love to see him as Prime Minister of Israel.
Read his definition of 'Dissident'.
To be a dissident among today's politicians and most world leaders is a badge of honor!!
| Quote: | November 19, 2004, 8:51 a.m.
Two Great Dissidents
Natan Sharansky’s vision, and President Bush’s.
By Joel C. Rosenberg
When Natan Sharansky stepped into Condoleezza Rice's West Wing office at 11:15 last Thursday morning, he had no idea the national security advisor would soon be named the next secretary of state. He was just glad to see her holding a copy of his newly published book, The Case for Democracy.
"I'm already half-way through your book," Rice said. "Do you know why I'm reading it?"
Sharansky, a self-effacing man who spent nine years in KGB prisons (often in solitary confinement) before becoming the first political prisoner released by Mikhail Gorbachev, hoped it had to do with his brilliant analysis and polished prose.
Rice smiled. "I'm reading it because the president is reading it, and it's my job to know what the president is thinking."
A close friend of the president had sent over a copy several weeks earlier with a note urging him to take a close look. The president nearly polished it off during a weekend at Camp David, then suggested to Rice that she read it as well.
For nearly 40 minutes, Rice engaged Sharansky — now an Israeli cabinet member — and co-author Ron Dermer, a former columnist with the Jerusalem Post, in a discussion over how best to help democracy take root in such hard soils as Iraq, Iran, and the West Bank and Gaza.
At precisely 2 P.M., Sharansky and Dermer were ushered into the Oval Office for a private meeting with the president. They were scheduled for 45 minutes. They stayed for more than an hour. What the president told Sharansky was off the record. What Sharansky told the president was not.
"I told the president, 'There is a great difference between politicians and dissidents. Politicians are focused on polls and the press. They are constantly making compromises. But dissidents focus on ideas. They have a message burning inside of them. They would stand up for their convictions no matter what the consequences.'
"I told the president, 'In spite of all the polls warning you that talking about spreading democracy in the Middle East might be a losing issue — despite all the critics and the resistance you faced — you kept talking about the importance of free societies and free elections. You kept explaining that democracy is for everybody. You kept saying that only democracy will truly pave the way to peace and security. You, Mr. President, are a dissident among the leaders of the free world.'"
From one of the most famous dissidents of era of the Evil Empire, such is not faint praise.
Early in The Case for Democracy, Sharansky, 56, recalls another Soviet-era dissident named Andrei Amalrik, who in 1969 wrote, Will The Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? Predicting the Communist empire's inevitable collapse, Amalrik, who was imprisoned by the KGB for his observations (and whom Sharansky later had the privilege of teaching English), explained that "any state forced to devote so much of its energies to physically and psychologically controlling millions of its own subjects could not survive indefinitely."
Sharansky writes: "The unforgettable image he left the reader with was that of a soldier who must always point a gun at his enemy. His arms begin to tire until their weight becomes unbearable. Exhausted, he lowers his weapon and the prisoner escapes."
At the time, many so-called "democrats" in the West dismissed Amalrik as downright delusional. But his prediction proved to be off by only a few years.
"How was one Soviet dissident able to see what legions of analysts and policymakers in the West were blind to?" asks Sharansky. "Did Amalrik have access to more information than they did? Was he smarter than all the Sovietologists put together? Of course not.... But unlike them, he understood the awesome power of freedom."
For Sharansky, this is the critical line of demarcation in the war on terror, dividing the naysayers from those who both believe in and are willing to fight for the notion that freedom is a universal human right.
He is convinced that democratic institutions can take hold throughout the Middle East. He concedes it will not be easy, but argues the key is bold moral leadership from the West of the kind that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher demonstrated in the 1980s.
"Everybody knows that weapons of mass destruction are very dangerous in the hands of terrorists," says Sharansky, his passion as strong as his accent. "But very few people understand how powerful weapons of mass construction can be in the hands the free world. There are so many skeptics, so many people who doubt whether Iraqis and Palestinians really want to live in freedom, or whether democracy in the Middle East is really such a good idea. But I lived under a totalitarian regime. I know the horrors of these regimes from the inside. I know they can be transformed. They won't be perfect, and they won't agree with us on every issue. But it is better to have a democracy that hates you than a dictatorship that loves you."
Sharansky cites the example of post-World War II Germany. Many doubted a true democracy could ever take root amidst the ashes of the Third Reich. But it has. True, most Germans opposed the recent war in Iraq and increasingly side against the U.S. in international policy debates. But so what? Sharansky asks. At least they are not carpet-bombing the whole of Europe.
Toward the end of the book, Sharansky quotes current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as having once told him, "I understand that in the Soviet Union your ideas were important, but unfortunately they have no place in the Middle East."
Sharansky respectfully disagrees. With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, and the passing of Yasser Arafat, Sharansky calls himself "an optimist." Never before in human history has the moment been more ripe for Iraqis and Palestinians to hear and embrace the case for democracy. The transitions for both will be difficult. But Sharansky is not daunted.
"When given a real opportunity to choose between living in a free society or a fear society, the vast majority of people will choose a free society. And a free society — a society where people feel safe to argue and dissent — will always be a stable society."
This is what Sharansky is working for, and he has just earned the ear of the president of the United States and the new secretary of state. |
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosenberg200411190851.asp
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks shawa.
This is my new argument to hand out. Wonderfully said by Mr. Sharansky. Even some of the idiots I try to converse with on this subject surely can see the wisdom in of Mr. Sharansky's words about pursuing the ideal of freedom as the best weapon in our arsenal to change the world for the better.
And the background on Mr. Sharansky is good info. Thanks some more.
His understanding of what a dissedent is comes from extremely personal experience so I will not argue with his terminolgy as it applies to G.W.
I was put off a little at first myself but after reading the background I can well understand his choice of words.
I'm off to pass this around.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I still think the word "dissident" is misused, but the additional background on the author helps to put his meaning in context. And if the purpose can be taken to be poking a finger in the eyes of the liberal MSM, then I'm all for it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just saw Mr. Saransky on Cavauto. Looks like Neil is paying attention.
Short but a good interview.
Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
