Editor's Note: Freedom's just another word for . . . Iran invasion?

I'll go this far: President Bush deserves credit for bold thinking. He wants to do big things during his presidency. He's not a bureaucrat or a tinkerer. I have to admit, I like that about him.

Unfortunately, Bush's bold visions tend to be deeply misguided. His ideas to "reform" the tax system and "save" Social Security not only are designed to benefit the rich and big business at the expense of regular people, but they threaten to undermine the financial well-being of the country.

Bush's foreign policy has been bold as well, but it's also been stupid. The Iraq war was unjustified, and Bush was not prepared to deal with the ugly aftermath. To this day, American soldiers are killed and injured almost daily in Iraq, and the huge and long-standing U.S. presence is fueling a growing opposition movement. Thousands of potential voters in Iraq's first post-Saddam election will stay away from the polls this week for fear of being killed.

Despite the high cost, heavy casualties and limited success of Bush's Iraq adventure, he continues to believe in his mission to spread democracy around the globe. Bush dedicated most of last week's inaugural address to the subject.

Free of context, Bush's speech sounded wonderful, echoing JFK. "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands," Bush said. "The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." And who could argue with that? Freedom, indeed, is a fine thing.

But the real world--Earth: 2005--is more complicated than Bush's idealistic rhetoric. As the Iraq war clearly shows, the United States can't just roll tanks into a country and establish a democracy. Too often, we Americans assume the rest of the world desperately wants to be more like us. We believe America is the greatest nation on Earth and that everybody agrees with our assessment. But the truth is that while the United States is an influential economic and cultural force, it is not universally respected or admired. In fact, the United States probably generates more hatred than any nation on the planet. There are many reasons for this, from the permanent detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay to prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib to corporate exploitation of Third World nations, but our brash hypocrisy is chief among them.

We often say one thing and do another. Bush says he's committed to spreading democracy, but what does that mean in terms of our relationships with Russia, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia? Are we going to promote freedom universally or only when it's in our best interests? If democracy-demanding dissidents rise up against an oppressive regime, will we really come to their aid? For that matter, does Bush even respect the rights of "dissidents" in his own country? In the end, one has to seriously question whether U.S. policy toward the oppressive Saudi Arabian rulers will change significantly during Bush's second term.

And isn't it obvious that to successfully promote freedom around the world, we need help? Bush is miffed at "Old Europe" for its refusal to endorse his Iraq war, but he has to understand by now that going it alone is a pricey proposition. "We can barely afford fighting insurgents in Fallujah and Sadr City, much less spreading freedom to the darkest corners of the earth," writes Slate.com's Fred Kaplan.

What's more, Bush sees the mission of spreading democracy primarily through a military lens. This is not only repugnant to the rest of the world, but it's fundamentally ineffective. Recent news reports indicate that Bush is contemplating a new military misadventure in Iran. In light of the Iraq quagmire and the growing rage generated by U.S. troops camping out in Arab countries, this belligerent notion seems destined to fail.

Bush and his neocon advisers refuse to understand that successfully spreading democracy does not depend on military might. The keys are to reduce poverty, improve education, expand health care and strengthen economies. Foreign aid is far more effective in building goodwill abroad and encouraging democracy than helicopter gunships and boots on the ground. Yet, as the Los Angeles Times editorialized Sunday, U.S. foreign aid is a pittance of what it should be if Bush were serious about spreading democracy.

"Americans like to think of themselves as the most generous people in the world, and buoying that impression is the fact that the United States gives, in total, more money in foreign aid than any other country," the Times wrote. "But that's only because our economy is so much bigger than that of other nations. When giving is measured as a percentage of gross national income, the U.S. is a deadbeat."

The United States trailed all industrialized nations in foreign aid in 2003, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Times notes that donations from American citizens help compensate for the government's stinginess, but American contributors still don't give as much per person as citizens from Switzerland, Ireland or Norway.

Naturally, Bush did not mention foreign aid in his inaugural address, and the subject barely mustered a mention during Condoleezza Rice's secretary of state confirmation hearing last week. Said the Times: "Such silence is why the United States is no longer considered a leader in efforts to improve conditions around the world."

If Bush really wants to lead a worldwide democratic revolution, he needs to spend less time in the Pentagon and more at the United Nations.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER