THE NEW buzzword of the mainstream media: hubris. All of the pundits,commentators and editorials are filled to the brim with this word. Hubris, hubris, hubris.
They're referring to President Bush's second term goals, outlined in his inaugural address last Thursday. His speech was that of a visionary, not of a pretentious, condescending fool.
Bush's supposed hubris was the topic of discussion on all the networks in the days after the inauguration. CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider declared, "A lot of people around the world listened to that speech and they saw a certain amount of arrogance and hubris." Newsweek Managing Editor Jon Meacham and Roll Call Executive Editor Mort Kondracke also jumped aboard the "hubris" bandwagon on MSNBC and Fox News, respectively.
The day after the inauguration, a Los Angeles Times editorial lectured, "It would be disastrous if self-righteous hubris led us into bloody and hopeless crusades, caused us to do terrible things that mock the values we are supposed to be fighting for, alienated us from an unappreciative world and possibly brought home more of the terrorism our neo-idealism is intended to suppress."
And, you guessed it, The Washington Post and The New York Times also printed the word several times.
These are just a handful of the talking heads and publications out of many that used the word to describe Bush's address and foreign policy.
President Bush's supposed "imperial hubris," to borrow a phrase from former CIA agent Michael Scheuer's book, stems in part from the content of his inaugural address. Some might label this speech as arrogant or pompous, but once you take a step back and examine exactly what Bush said, you'll realize that this wasn't a call to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," as Ann Coulter once suggested.
Bush wisely noted, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." He also clarified, "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way."
He stated one of his foreign policy objectives: "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."
CNN's Schneider characterized the speech as "bold" and "ambitious." This is stating the obvious, but what is wrong with setting forth a noble goal for the future?
You might recall learning about the term hubris in high school English literature. Usually a tragic hero displays hubris when he boastfully takes on a task too great to handle, and tragically his pride becomes his downfall, and he collapses into oblivion. However, Bush didn't say, "I'm going to single-handedly end tyranny and oppression in every corner of the earth in the next 3.5 years."
Rather, he set forth a long-term target to aim for. His goal is lofty and certainly not completely achievable during his tenure in office (which he never contended), but it is an important vision to instill in our culture so that this generation and future generations may strive toward it.
We see in today's political and social environment a whole host of ambitions that are far-reaching and long-term. Bush's aspirations of ending tyranny aren't any different from calls for world peace and the eradication of racism and other forms of prejudice and hatred, world hunger and poverty, AIDS, environmental destruction, etc. that no one would dare label "hubristic."
This Bush-is-too-big-for-his-britches tune that is being sung by the mainstream media (that's supposedly unbiased) is ridiculous. A president is supposed to dream big and set goals for the future. Aren't all great leaders, whether in the private or public sector, supposed to do this?
Think back to some major turning points in history that were arrived at through the bold "hubris" of intellectual, political, scientific and heroic giants. Our Founding Fathers, leaders of the civil rights movement, Ghandi, John F. Kennedy (his space mission), Ronald Reagan (his defeat of communism), as well as brilliant inventors such as Albert Einstein, Henry Ford and Bill Gates, all possessed a drive and passion to improve society in one way or another.
Bush's broad vision for the future is one that will make the world a more peaceful place. Obviously, this will not happen overnight, nor in the next four years and maybe not even in his lifetime. However, the seeds of change start with a vision, as with any large-scale goal. But unprecedented democratic elections in two countries is a pretty good start.
Whitney Blake is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at wblake@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
