Jackson Free Press

As we watch the aftermath of the elections in Iraq, let's remember that while our own American culture remains young, our course of freedom is not. More than 225 years is a long time for any single form of government to last, but because our Founding Fathers had such a strong vision of liberty, our free republic not only has endured, it has become freedom's highest beacon, its standard of measure, freedom's unquestioned leader. Iraqis have just begun their course of freedom, and all free peoples should support their effort.

As Condoleezza Rice, the first female African-American Secretary of State, noted upon her confirmation, it took time for America to live up to the ideals of freedom and liberty for its many types of people. Yet, because those ideals of freedom were ingrained in our Constitution, our course of freedom and full attainment of liberty's promise were set. The vision of a nation formed from many different peoples bound together by a common love of freedom was staked out long before our lifetimes or even our parents' or grandparents' lifetimes. The same is true for Iraq or for any new democracy. While it may take generations of nurturing, nations founded on and grounded in freedom will eventually overcome and prosper. Once free, folks rarely accept anything less, and that includes Iraqis.

The Iraqi elections this week surpassed expectations. An incredible 70 percent of eligible Iraqis voted, risking their lives and sending an unmistakable signal that Iraqis want to follow 30 years of Saddam's tyranny with freedom. As one newspaper noted, the Iraqi people indeed confounded their critics. Despite all that's been hurled against them for generations, they very actively and gladly participated in this historic leap forward - an opportunity for liberty brought to them by uniformed military men and women from America and a host of coalition partners who drove Saddam Hussein from power, denying the terrorist parasites yet another host country to plunder and subject to tyranny.

Yet, rather than Americans teaching Iraqis a lesson in democracy, they're teaching us one - a lesson too many of us take for granted. That lesson is: While God intends for all people to be free, it is indeed still a privilege to live free and vote freely. While Americans let something as minor as rain impede us from voting, Iraqis snubbed the possibility of death or injury, bravely voting, and sending America a big "thank you" by their actions. We ought to remember their sacrifices and that of our military men and women in Iraq the next time we have the opportunity to vote.

So often, we dwell on democracy's shortcomings and the sometimes disorganized and dissenting chorus of competing voices which characterizes the democratic process. Yet, as the President said in his inaugural address and again in his State of the Union speech, freedom is contagious. In just 20 years, the number of democratically-elected governments worldwide has gone from roughly 20 countries to more than 118, including places no one once would have dreamed would hold free elections – like the Ukraine, Poland and now Iraq.

Even with successful elections behind them, a lot of people think that Iraq is too splintered to succeed, that there are too many ethnic or religious differences for democracy to really take root there. They expect Iraq's new government will be short lived, and they'll continue to voice skepticism. Well, that's what some folks thought almost exactly 190 years ago, when English naval and marine forces - many of them seasoned veterans who had fought Napoleon - sailed up the Mississippi Sound and headed for what they considered a contemptible little backwater town called New Orleans. They had just laid waste to the young American republic's new capital at Washington, D.C. No one expected a few American troops, commanded by a gruff Tennessean named Andrew Jackson, and a few hundred ragtag volunteers of native Americans, African-Americans, Creoles, and Mississippi farmers to join ranks, much less rout the King's formidable invaders. But they did. Why? Because people yearn to live free, and once people are free, they'll come together, defy all odds and repeal any threat to freedom.

Freedom is never easily won, but once established, freedom lasts, spreads and chokes out tyranny. From our own experience, Americans know that the path to freedom, though very hard, is always the right course. (2/4/05)

Senator Lott welcomes any questions or comments about this column. Write to: U.S. Senator Trent Lott, 487 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 (Attn: Press Office)

Previous Commentsshow

gee thanks Ladd, I just love reading this stuff from Lott.. second to last paragraph, he makes freedom sound like kudzu. and his comparison in the paragraph before - that is so ludicrous! or shall we say reversed. ragtag forces fighting off the seasoned English forces. so, in Iraq, who is fighting for freedom from whom? who are the conquering forces there? not that I think the insurgents are great folks, but hey, they are in a 'contemptible little backwater.' boggles the mind, don't it.

sunshine

Feb 4 2005

So why do you print these things anyway? I do honestly appreciate the JFP providing different views, but these Lott pieces are just so damn glurgeful. I guess it's hard to turn down a U.S. senator and white house party planner. Have a great weekend.

original sinema

Feb 4 2005

They're free, they send them to me every week, and they cause great discussion! Plus, it's important for people to read what our representatives are saying on our behalf. I'll print columns by any of Mississippi lawmakers on our Web site. Why not? And sometimes they make the print edition. Lott's (guy is) the only one who sends them regularly, though. I wish we'd get more. Spread the word. I don't have time to solicit them. And "glurgeful" is a downright delightful word. Thanks for using it! I also have to admit to having a soft spot for good party planners.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

ok - but was it really a good party? ha. I did not see many dancing in the streets - looked pretty much like a strict parent kind of party. but, you're right , printing what he has to say is sort of fun to bounce off of. as far away as possible! but do we really need more? who has time to read drivelly press releases? there are too many actual good ideas out there.

sunshine

Feb 4 2005

As far as I can tell, the great Barbara (Snopes.com) Mikkelson coined the term. "What is glurge? Think of it as chicken soup with several cups of sugar mixed in...", says Babs. "The Course of Freedom" reads like the subject heading of a glurge-mail to my jaded eyes. Oh, and isn't "They're free and they send them to me every week" the slogan of another Cracktown weekly with a vaguely Supermanish name?

original sinema

Feb 4 2005

Somehow, Orig, the word just spoke for itself, as a good made-up word is wont to do. ;-) Perfect for Mr. Lott.

DonnaLadd

Feb 4 2005

For once, I find little to disagree with Lott in this article -- to most of y'all's horror. It's probably because he concentrates on matters that are difficult to disagree with (mainly, who can disagree with democracy and Iraqi's right to choose their leaders? who can disagree that the Iraqis who voted stood courageously in the face of terror attacks?) We can debate the merits and demerits of the war endlessly. I myself came to the conclusion the war was a waste of resources now since we found no substantial evidence of WMD (aside from the vaguest circumstantial evidence, if that). If there is a saving grace to the invasion, it's the Iraqi election. Of course that depends on how well this Shiite-dominated government operates (which depends in no small part how they deal with the disgruntled Sunnis). BTW, I bought a hard copy of today's NYT. They say that of the 1.6 Million votes counted so far, it looks like the Shiite coalition endorsed by Ali Al-Sistani took 72% of the vote, with 18% going to Prime Minister Allawi. If there is good news, a coalition of "National Independent Elites and Cadres", affiliated with Moqtada al-Sadr (remember him? The Battle of Najaf.. renegade Shiite cleric), got only 1.5% of the vote. But...a caveat here, so far, the bulk of ballots counted seemed to be from Baghdad and southern (Shiite-dominated) Iraq. Even if the turnout is low, a 1.5% turnout suggest that at least the Shiite insurgents are getting little support, even among their own co-religionists. On the other hand, the Sistani-affiliated alliance does have ties to Iran, so Teheran will be acting behind the scenes somewhere (and potentially complicating nuclear talks). Well, at least we allowed the people of Iraq to vote for a group affiliated with a government we aren't particularly fond of. All we can do is wait, see, and deal with the Shiites in the most pragmatic and considerate manner.

Philip

Feb 4 2005

philip you are such an optimist1 sorry for typos i hurt my right pinky at the gym, out of commissin for a while.(that finger is important, does p but also enter and backspace! ouch . you might want to read and hear (pacifica radio) some alternative news.. not be be a 'pessimist' but ere's one cannot send whole , there's a character limit of 3000 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/05/election/print.html Voting doesn't mean democracy The election impressed the world, but now the Iraqis have to learn to share power. And there's still a savage firefight every night in my Baghdad neighborhood.. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Mitchell Prothero Feb. 5, 2005 | BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Sunday's vote was a huge event for Iraq. The performance of the Iraqis in putting aside their understandable cynicism toward their "liberation" deserved its laudatory headlines. But it was only a good first step. It may turn out that it was easier for Iraqis to risk mortar rounds than to take the next step: accepting that sometimes your candidate loses. "Now the government is from us, the Iraqi people," says Nadeem Zubaydi, a 45-year-old shopkeeper in the Shiite neighborhood of Karada. "Before [the Governing Council] was not legitimate, because they came from outside Iraq, with the Americans." His neighbor Hirsham, a cobbler, says that he and other Iraqis will respect the election's results even if their candidate or ticket does not win. "I will not be upset if my candidates do not win," he says. "With the winner, the people around him will have to discuss his decisions. And maybe say no and stop him from doing things." The right to criticize his new government seems to mean most to Nadeem and other Iraqis. "When I talked before, I couldn't say exactly what I wanted," he continues. "Now I am sure that if I complain, the new government can find the solution." But there is a huge caveat: Nadeem voted for the Shiite ticket -- the winning one. The small number of votes counted so far show a commanding lead for the religious Shiite political coalition led by Abdul Hakim Aziz. This is disappointing news for secular Iraqis and supporters of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who are hoping that the Aziz ticket fails to muster a plurality of the new 275-seat Legislature, so they will be included in a coalition government. Final results could come next week. The immediate benefit of the election was that huge segments of the Iraqi population embraced the possibility they could elect a government. This raises hopes that they will support this yet-unseen government in its fight against the nihilist insurgents and terrorists who are intent on stopping a successful government from stabilizing Iraq. Much has been written about the motivations of the insurgents and their foreign jihadi allies, but the

sunshine

Feb 5 2005