Condemned to Freedom

(TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK--my 3rd college essay)

The definition of war follows as a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns. The word contest can have multiple meanings, its can be a frivolous diversion, an intense competition, or in the case of war: a struggle for superiority. This is what wars are: the fight to be the top dog among the vicious pack. John Winthrop, a puritan fleeing the religious oppression of England, made the famous claim: “we shall find the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies…for we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us” (477). Can America still be considered that city today? In the second inaugural address made by President George W. Bush appears this myth of the ‘City upon a Hill.’ This myth is portrayed through his words as a continuance in the forward march of freedom and the relentless action that America should answer any call from those in the greatest need; a call for the relief from oppression. Through this empowerment of the myth George W. Bush creates a call to action to all Americans for the support of the war and to remember that our ultimate goal: freedom is worthy of any loss.

Loren Baritz discusses in his essay, “God’s Country and American Know-How,” that it is not only the needed reasons of duty and the promotion of freedom to enter battle, but the very DNA of America that makes us fight the good and bad fights. Baritz replicates John Winthrop’s famous City on a Hill myth as scaffolding for the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The myth starts off as a religious statement about “God’s chosen people.” This translates as the virtuous and the select few in the land of religious freedom; there shall be a movement of moral example to all countries, people, and religions who would be viewing America. This myth unravels through-out time to encompass America in a doctrine to enforce freedom because it is seen as our duty.

The strange power of a speech can captivate us all when it is spoken with the right manner. When reading an inaugural address it always makes one wish to act instantly. Bush’s speech has this certain finesse to it; a sense of required action mixed with a plan that could seemingly work. It also employs the askance to be patient in the support of a “cause.” These types of speeches are informative, yet cryptic. Loren Baritz uses Kennedy’s speech to display how the myth was tied into our involvement in Vietnam. Kennedy states: “…only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger…The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all those who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.” This quote kindles to the proclamation of John Winthrop. We are as lighthouse to the world; our guiding is light watched and followed by many. Also, there is the mention of “maximum danger.” Here he is tying a bit of fear into the speech, another reason why we should act with haste and no hesitation. Then, Bush follows: “God moves and chooses and He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul” (497). Again, America is seen as the guiding light for those “dark places,” we are the prescription for the disease of oppression. The introduction of a “permanent hope” describes a call to those more fortunate whom have freedom to help others in the most desperate lack of it. Using Baritz for reference, and the similar situations of our country during war time, there is that call for immediate action; a joining of forces to fight this all encompassing evil—oppression—in support of freedom. We are identifying the necessity of war and the good that will come from it. Bush also speaks of “lighting a fire in the minds of men” (495). This “untamed fire of freedom” (495) we are lighting so that others may feel its heat as we do and act accordingly so that we all may enjoy the benefits of freedom. Does this give ample reason for war or the continuation thereof? This empowerment, which stems from the myth, overflows as a motivator to the country that helps the downtrodden. We are providing assistance rather than be the safe moral example as it started out.

Baritz displays the idea of the morphing myth. Just as our technology and weapons have evolved into the 21^st century so has our myth. This modern myth now is our fame as the moral enforcers of the world rather than the moral example previously shown in history. What does the necessary burden of death, controversy and pain bring to the table of America? Baritz develops a long quote from John Quincy Adams with an explanation that “…she [America] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy…she will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice and by the benignant sympathy of her example” (478). This quote frankly states the reserving of military authority and yet, the openness to being an example to the planet on the conduct of a nation. Baritz develops his theory further; he goes through the start of America’s powerful progression to the top and our inevitability to believe us superior to all, through the myth. Using the myth as a supporter for our actions he leads the reader into a discussion of the three flaws of America that brought us into a losing streak. As seen in the retraction from Vietnam and the continual downward progression of the Iraq situation.

In the joint efforts of superior military might, technological advancement, and a great track record of war-wins allowed for America’s powerful to decide to join the Vietnam War. Again the same can apply with the current war in Iraq. Baritz implores that our belief in our virtue, our good fortune of being geographical favored implied invincibility. The thoughts of WWII and its end with devastation proved to the world that we truly were the chosen country. This gave ample room for the modern myth to get comfortable, to sink its teeth into America’s mind and control our thought process. Until America lost the struggle in Vietnam did we knock ourselves off that proverbial pedestal and flee back home with our tail between our legs. With the startling similarities to Vietnam there is this probing question with the war in Iraq: have we learned our lesson? Apparently not, when delving through Bush’s inaugural speech again there is this call to look at the “bigger picture,” as in the same with Kennedy speech for Vietnam. Kennedy famous statement “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” implies this “bigger picture” theory. In every American heart out there lies this modern myth, in its dormant state there can be peace. When it is wakeful and feeding off the energies of the powerful and the anger of injustice then we see this active movement towards war with the purpose of freedom.

Our wish to help those fledgling countries in need temporarily hides our fear of losing; and what the implications of such a loss might do for our own moral. The dependence our country has on being the best, the brightest, the biggest, is lost when we fail. A depression of destruction comes from this loss. Are we forever to be condemned to be as the “City upon the Hill” all eyes upon us watching every victory and every mistake? Under that type of scrutiny no campaign, war, or four years in office can ever come out in good light. The agony of defeat is a pit of acid that eats away in our bellies. No one likes to lose, and to Americans it goes against our grain. The defeat we suffered in Vietnam and the losses we are suffering in Iraq allow for this hemorrhage of the myth in our country today and the use it within our diplomacy abroad.