Bush’s promotion of global democracy goes hand in hand with his crusading rhetoric, and despite the Iraq War, that was started in 2003 to ‘promote democracy and end tyranny’, being somewhat of a failure, Bush continued to place unflinching emphasis on the worldwide fight between freedom and tyranny – a fight for which the U.S. would and did act unilaterally by declaring war in Iraq. (Shinkman, 2015). There is little doubt that the Bush administration pursued a strand of liberal internationalism in trying to promote liberal ideals throughout the international community. However, catalysed and accentuated by the September 11 attacks, this strand became over-aggressive and Bush’s crusading rhetoric became over bearing. Another speech that reflects
…show more content…
Many argue that the moment that this shift in foreign policy began was when the newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the three pillars of US foreign policy should be the ‘three Ds’ of defence, diplomacy and development. (Bouchet, 2011) As highlighted by Nicholas Bouchet, “this left many wondering whether the fourth ‘D’ of democracy was being jettisoned, along with much of the foreign policy legacy of George W. Bush.” The differences between Bush and Obama’s foreign policy stance can be directly seen in certain speeches they delivered. While Bush’s crusading rhetoric is seen in his September 20 address and his ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, Obamas emerging pragmatic and realist rhetoric can be seen in his inaugural address given in January, 2009. Obama preaches restraint, compassion and humility throughout his address, stating that; “our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead…our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” Throughout this inaugural address Obama, in an obvious attempt to further distance himself from the crusading rhetoric employed by Bush, did not use the word democracy once. (Bouchet, 2011). This has been used by critics of Obamas lack of democracy promotion to show that “President Obama follows a misguided realism that rejects democracy promotion in order to engage in key bilateral relationships with countries like Russia, China or Iran that lack democratic credentials.” (Bouchet, 2011) While it may show a misguided realism, it is not certain. However what is certain is that Obamas rhetoric was immediately different to that of George W. Bush. The new Obama administration performed a
Many argue that the moment that this shift in foreign policy began was when the newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the three pillars of US foreign policy should be the ‘three Ds’ of defence, diplomacy and development. (Bouchet, 2011) As highlighted by Nicholas Bouchet, “this left many wondering whether the fourth ‘D’ of democracy was being jettisoned, along with much of the foreign policy legacy of George W. Bush.” The differences between Bush and Obama’s foreign policy stance can be directly seen in certain speeches they delivered. While Bush’s crusading rhetoric is seen in his September 20 address and his ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, Obamas emerging pragmatic and realist rhetoric can be seen in his inaugural address given in January, 2009. Obama preaches restraint, compassion and humility throughout his address, stating that; “our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead…our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” Throughout this inaugural address Obama, in an obvious attempt to further distance himself from the crusading rhetoric employed by Bush, did not use the word democracy once. (Bouchet, 2011). This has been used by critics of Obamas lack of democracy promotion to show that “President Obama follows a misguided realism that rejects democracy promotion in order to engage in key bilateral relationships with countries like Russia, China or Iran that lack democratic credentials.” (Bouchet, 2011) While it may show a misguided realism, it is not certain. However what is certain is that Obamas rhetoric was immediately different to that of George W. Bush. The new Obama administration performed a