The following excerpt comes from an article by Nicholas Kralev on Condoleezza Rice, published in the Washington Times:
But then she spelled out her definition of a true friend: a country that does not "put a check" on American power but stands firmly with the United States in its effort to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction and other modern ills.
"Why would anyone who shares the values of freedom seek to put a check on those values?" Miss Rice asked, adding that Europe and democracies worldwide should follow Washington's lead instead of trying to balance it with competing policies.
"Power in the service of freedom is to be welcomed, and powers that share a commitment to freedom can and must make common cause against freedom's enemies," she said in the June 2003 speech.
Miss Rice, who is one of Mr. Bush's confidants, dismissed a vision of "multipolarity" advanced by French President Jacques Chirac and others, calling it "a theory of rivalry, of competing interests," which "only the enemies of freedom would cheer."
"We have tried this before," she said. "It led to the Great War, which cascaded into the Good War, which gave way to the Cold War. Today, this theory of rivalry threatens to divert us from meeting the great tasks before us."
For a society to exist, it cannot escape the use of power. At the same time, for the members of a society to be "free," power must be limited. Ms. Rice, by claiming that "power in the service of freedom is to be welcomed," seems to be presenting a potentially contradictory position, particularly in light of the other statements she makes in this excerpt. The problem comes from the definition of "freedom." Or, the lack of definition, the inexplicability of freedom in contemporary political discourse. In other words, freedom as a "god-term."
Look closely at her statement. She sets up a hierarchy: power in the service of freedom. The freedom comes first, the power is a necessary supplement to it. The freedom is what is autonomous, sacred, first. But freedom uses power, leads to the freedom to act with power; she claims that we should not "put a check" on American values or America's place as the definer of freedom. Essentially, she sees freedom as homogeneity, a "common cause." Freedom, then, best functions in a world of sameness, not difference.
I am not aware of President Chirac's "Multipolarity" theory, although I could imagine what it might look like. Ms. Rice interprets it as promoting a "rivalry" and "competing interests" that do nothing but gladden the hearts of freedom's "enemies." Competing interests, then, are not freedom, or at least, are a potential down fall for freedom.
So freedom, according to Ms. Rice, is unified, noncompetitive, clearly defined by those who value it (the definition being the values of the United States), and a legitimate justification for the use of power. I decided to see if the dictionary shared the same definition.
Encarta: Freedom: 1. Ability to act freely. 2. Release from captivity or slavery. 3. Country's right to self-rule. 4. Right to act or speak freely. These are the first four definitions offered. With the exception of (2), none of these things seem to be encouraged by Ms. Rice in her definition. Of course, she will admit that countries have the right to self-rule legally (although rights, like the Geneva Convention, can really be considered "quaint" -- see Ashcroft's replacement), but if they desired freedom, they would not exercise that right. Nor would they seek to act freely, as that would encourage competition. Nor should they speak out, since that would encourage the enemies of freedom. And, if they are freed from captivity or slavery (read Afghanistan/Iraq), they must immediately submit themselves to the desires of that harbinger and pilot of freedom, the United States.
But perhaps there is a particular definiton of freedom that Ms. Rice may be thinking of when she makes these statements: 5. Absence of something unpleasant. Not being able to buy new clothes might be considered unpleasant. Not being able to watch TV or eat out might be considered to be unpleasant. Clearly, not being able to own a car is unpleasant. Perhaps this is the definition of "freedom" she is working out of. Although, not having adequate health care is also unpleasant. Sending your child off to war is unpleasant. Theft, murder, and embezzlement are all unpleasant. So maybe America doesn't fit that definition, either.
I argue that, at least as it is used by our leaders, "freedom" becomes a nebulous, transcendent signifier, without definition, without referent, and without a moral imperitive. Our politics and national values are filled with such terms. We need to recognize this if we are ever going to say anything.