I oppose all of George W. Bush’s domestic policies. His single-minded, simplified reasoning on the all-healing power of tax cuts baffles me. His Medicare and education reforms will solve nothing; his immigration policy seems nothing short of disaster. And his strange obsession with steroid abuse is silly. But I’m seriously considering voting for him.

Optimism guides my current political thought. Let me explain: George Bush’s vision of the world, the future, and America’s role in shaping it is inspiring. He gives a young liberal a vision not seen since John F. Kennedy or Woodrow Wilson-two idealistic presidents who understood the United States’ role in the world.

“The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country,” Bush declared at recent event celebrating the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. Why is this on Bush’s mind? The attacks of September 11th turned our country’s attention to the elimination of terrorism-or more accurately, radical Islamic terrorism. Bush has pursued this goal with a policy that encompasses both short and long-term goals.

He has made immediate gains against terrorism by attacking the terrorists and the organizations that financially support them-removing the Taliban in Afghanistan, freezing assets of charitable front organizations, pressuring governments that support terrorism, like Syria. His ambitious long-term plan to antiquate terrorism is based on the historically supported belief that “freedom leads to peace.” That is, only by bringing freedom to oppressed peoples can peace have a chance to flourish.

Bush’s vision-the first steps of which are being taken in Afghanistan and Iraq-has received much criticism from liberals and Democrats. Besides the defeated Joe Lieberman though, no Democrat has come forward with their own solution to America’s foreign policy problem. There appears to be a consensus amongst Democrats that America should simply revert to a friendlier pre-9/11 status quo in order to not aggravate possible terrorists. This policy is seriously flawed, morally and logically. Terrorism cannot be eliminated with arrests, or by giving more money to failing regimes, or by trying to make countries like us-it can only be eliminated by aiming at the source, people suffering under oppressive regimes.

Bush explains that, “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe-because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.

As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.”

The status quo means the United States keeps looking the other way and supporting Saudi Arabia’s government for the sake of oil. A government which violently censors their people, oppresses their woman, jails and kills homosexuals, and (most important to our self-interest) supports madrassahs throughout the Muslim world.

Madrassahs are schools where only the Qu’ran is taught and studied. More often than not, a radical, anti-Western interpretation is encouraged. The problem of these schools is multiplied by the education received outside the classroom, from the media.

The government censored news does not allow self-criticism-only anti-American and anti-Jewish stories. These ideas are forced on Arab-Muslim people because it draws a hurting people’s attention away from the real problem-their own governments.

George Bush has approached this problem by attempting to make Iraqi democracy successful and, “that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran-that freedom can be the future of every nation.

The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.” It is to make Middle Easterners proud of their own governments by having a government that they make for themselves.

Other benefits from freeing Iraq: we become less militarily (locations for American bases) and financially (oil) dependent on Saudi Arabia-the world’s biggest direct and indirect supporter of terrorism. We would then be in a better position to pressure the Saudi regime for reforms in their country, with the most important reform being in the classroom. There is no place in this world for the teaching of mass hatred.

“The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom-the freedom we prize-is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.” These words, if spoken by a great orator, could bring one to tears. Unfortunately George Bush is not a great orator, but that does not diminish the power of his ideas. He is calling for a safer United States and a better world.

His critics explain this as imperialistic rhetoric, but they fail to see, or refuse to accept, the awesome potential this view holds. They cannot accept any possible virtue in George W. Bush. When did liberals become such cynics?