Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring Term Paper

Pages: 13 (3984 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 1  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Terrorism

Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring aims to condemn the liberal mindset by assigning responsibility for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on what Hannity believes to be liberal policies. To Hannity, winning "the war on terror" must be done at all costs, as to preserve the "blessings of liberty" handed down by our forefathers (Hannity 3). Essentially, the book uses the events of September 11 to justify conservative views while condemning liberal ideals. His argument is not a straightforward and strict argument in the logical sense; instead, he seems to take the opportunity to discuss, in depth, many other political matters utterly unrelated to his overall point. Defense of the United States from terrorists is his primary topic, however he often strays into lengthy discourses concerning abortion and tax breaks. If nothing else, this book provides an insight into the conservative frame of mind -- where he places his priorities, his philosophy, his anger -- and illustrates the underlying premises conservatives stand upon; which are fundamentally different from liberals.Buy full Download Microsoft Word File paper
for $19.77

Term Paper on Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring Aims to Assignment

From the onset Hannity reveals where his philosophical foundations rest: "I believe in the American dream, the American ideal, the unique American culture, and traditional American values. Indeed, my core political beliefs -- my conservative ideals -- are grounded in my respect for the traditions that make up America's foundation." (Hannity 2). Obviously, many people would take issue with these core beliefs possessed by Hannity; specifically, many people feel that the idea of the American dream is a complete fallacy in today's world, and in fact, that many upward obstacles are deliberately in place within the American infrastructure; yet, Hannity grants these notions no credence. Additionally, Hannity's preference for the founding and pervading traditions within American culture cause him to reach many conclusions that someone more open to newer and more varied traditions would never accept. Basically, by identifying these central values and doing little to justify them, Hannity reveals his particular conservative ideology: he believes Americans are free because he does, and he believes in the preservation of traditional values because they were here first. Logically, the first premise is completely invalid, and the second is highly questionable. All together, if the reader happens to disagree with either one of these notions, they are in for a rough ride within the pages of Let Freedom Ring.

Hannity believes that the war on terror needs to be won "no matter what sacrifices it requires or how long it takes." (Hannity 7). This, of course, includes making sacrifices on our own freedoms -- apparently, to ensure the perpetuation of these freedoms. Consequently he argues that the war must be fought with everything the United States has at its disposal:

To win, we must fight with bullets, bombs, spy satellites, special ops, and the latest weapons in our high-tech, high intelligence arsenal. But we must understand that this is also a war of ideas: between good and evil; between right and wrong; between Judeo-Christian values upon which this nation was founded and the violent nihilism of radical Islam." (Hannity 6).

This is a theme that runs throughout Let Freedom Ring: good is associated with Christianity and evil is associated with Islam. At no point in the book does Hannity acknowledge that many nations in the Middle East may, actually, have legitimate grievances towards the Untied States, nor does he separate such grievances from the religion he associates them with. The term "radical Islam" peppers his work, but at no point is the term defined; it is only given enough attention to be vaguely understood as a mentality that should be feared without question, or at least without any true comprehension.

It is also important to note that glaringly omitted from Hannity's list of weapons to fight terrorism is diplomacy. This illustrates his general belief that hated directed towards the United States is strongly tied to religious ideals and cannot be linked to any understandable or logical arguments. Based upon Hannity's explicit preference for Christian philosophy it should come as no surprise that he feels he can simply dismiss any peaceful agreements offhand; after all, the East cannot understand the West, just as Hannity cannot understand the East. Within his first paragraph he confides, "I was born combative," and his inclination towards violent resolutions reiterates this statement (Hannity 1).

The formal argument within this book begins with a discussion of how Hannity feels the Clinton administration set the stage for the terrorist attacks during the Bush administration. He writes, "The Clinton administration never truly focused on protecting the American people from terrorism in general and Osama Bin Laden in particular." (Hannity 5). First, Hannity identifies Clinton as a liberal, which is certainly debatable. Then he goes on to assert that liberals tend to be more concerned with environmental issues than they are with national defense. He uses the following reasoning to suggest why national defense should be granted priority over environmental concerns:

Protecting our air, land, and water from pollution is certainly important. But isn't electing leaders committed to a 'frenzied' -- that is, urgent -- effort to rebuild out military and protect our homeland security far more important? Which brings me to a point sure to be controversial. But it happens to be true. The views of the American Left -- and the policies that flow from them -- aren't just wrongheaded; they're reckless." (Hannity 11).

Doubtlessly, most Americans -- at this point in history anyway -- would tend to agree with the statement that national security should come first and environmental concerns should come second. However, the justification Hannity uses to support this idea could easily be turned around. Put more bluntly, it is also reckless to pay no heed to long-term -- and potentially disastrous -- problems while seeking immediate security. The troubles facing the world environmentally threaten to claim more lives worldwide and endanger human survival for thousands of years to come, as opposed to national defense which affects fewer people, more immediately. In addition, the environmental crisis can only be solved with immediate action; continuing the policy of putting off any serious action until it is explicitly demanded is, by the very definition of the word, reckless. This outlook on the position of America -- to maintain our way of life first, and address future problems second -- is at the heart of Hannity's conservative philosophy, and rears its head a number of times in Let Freedom Ring.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny that the Clinton-Gore administration did little to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States and that they also failed to apprehend Osama Bin Laden when they had the chance. Hannity argues, "Liberals told us that global warming and gays in the military were top priorities, well above securing our nation, September 11 and subsequent revelations have proven them wrong." (Hannity 21). Once again, Hannity supplies a logical error. Although his argument that Clinton considered global warming a higher priority than terrorism is convincing, what is not convincing is; first, that Clinton's actions -- and not Bush's -- led to terrorist attacks, and second, that global warming is still not a larger problem. Naturally, this second notion sounds ridiculous to most Americans; after all, three thousand people died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and no one, as of yet, has died as a result of global warming. However, ensuring the suffering of future generations by promising the safety of the present generation is not clearly a sound policy. The logical conclusion that terrorism is a greater threat to humanity cannot be supported by a single terrorist act.

Furthermore, the conclusion that it was entirely liberal negligence that led to the attacks on September 11 is highly questionable. To begin with, Bush had been in office for a year and a half, with a Congress dominated by republicans; surely, this should have provided him with ample time and muscle to reverse any problems concerning national security that he had inherited. but, Hannity only mentions this is passing, implying that Bush was helpless to stop the forces of "evil" that had already been set into motion.

The central argument that Hannity attempts to put forward is based upon the notion that liberals tend to decrease defense spending while conservatives tend to increase it, and the recent terrorist attacks have proven that the conservatives had the right idea. He uses a quote from Robert Baer -- a former CIA operative -- that clearly states his point-of-view: "Now that such horrendous neglect has come home to roost in such misery-provoking ways, I take no such pleasure whatsoever in having been right." (Hannity 40). The future is never clear, and certainly had previous administrations been fully aware of the terrorist threat the CIA is likely to have been granted more power and personnel. Yet, automatically concluding that a CIA with better resources could have prevented terrorist attacks is not a straightforward deduction; it is unclear, even in hindsight, that the CIA could have stopped the events of… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (13 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Ring of Gyges Was Famous Term Paper

Freedom's Challenge Term Paper

Freedom of Information vs. Privacy and Security Term Paper

Freedom Has Been Suggested as an Inalienable Term Paper

Freedom and Reason According to Kant Essay

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring.  (2004, November 8).  Retrieved April 9, 2020, from

MLA Format

"Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring."  8 November 2004.  Web.  9 April 2020. <>.

Chicago Style

"Sean Hannity's Let Freedom Ring."  November 8, 2004.  Accessed April 9, 2020.