Bushs victimological view of America as seen in his first inaugural address

In his disgraceful speech in Senegal about American slavery, President Bush portrays America as under a permanent racial guilt. He essentially takes the liberal line that America can only be seen as a moral and legitimate country to the extent that it raises up blacks and makes them equaland equality, if we are to take Bushs recent statements on diversity as a guide, means that blacks must have guaranteed numerical equality of results in every area of life. Since that can never happen, America is condemned to permanent guilt and permanent racial blackmail. His Senegal speech therefore seems of a piece with his support for the Supreme Courts disastrous decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.

The speech also brought to mind Bushs inaugural address. While regular conservatives were ecstatic about it at the time, I was appalled, as it portrayed America as a big collection of victims needing succor. So, in order to understand the mind of this liberal president whom conservatives adore, here is Bushs inaugural along with the contemporaneous comments I wrote about it, bolded and bracketed throughout. My commentary may have something of an unfinished quality, but I am leaving it as is to provide the original flavor of my response. (See also my discussion of Bushs Jacobinist second inaugural address.)

George W. BushInaugural AddressJanuary 20, 2001

Thank you all. Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, distinguished guests and my fellow citizens. The peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history, yet common in our country. [The old American myth: we still act as though we are the only country in the world with constitutional government, with the rest of the world residing in an eternal night of tyranny and superstition.] With a simple oath, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings. As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our nation. And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit and ended with grace.

I am honored and humbled to stand here, where so many of Americas leaders have come before me, and so many will follow.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story, a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is the story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old. The story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom. The story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer. It is the American story, a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise: that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born. Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes delayed, we must follow no other course.

[Everyone belongs??? You mean, the whole world belongs in and to America? Everyone deserves a chance? Meaning, we have the obligation to everyone in the world to give them a chance? This is gobbledygook.]Through much of the last century, Americas faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon the wind [heres hes alluding to that ineffably silly line in his fathers inauguralfreedom is a kite flying higher and higher], taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass along. And even after nearly 225 years, we have a long way yet to travel.

While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promiseeven the justiceof our own country. [Are they justified in that doubt? Those are the same ranting extremists who insist that they were stopped from voting in Florida because of their race, without a shred of evidence to back it up. Do the doubts of such people deserve respect and solicitude?] The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools, and hidden prejudice and the circumstances of their birth. [What evidence is there that hidden prejudice is actually seriously preventing anyone in this country from realizing his ambitions? Bush simply accepts the lefts myth of ubiquitous racism holding blacks down. And what does it mean to say that a persons ambitions are limited by the circumstances of his birth? You mean, if a person is very stupid, and has very stupid and disordered parents, that that will affect his circumstances? Yes, of course it will. But how is that a violation of Americas ideal to allow each person to try to realize his ambitions?] And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country. [What differences? Hes implying that the divide is mutual. But it is Bushs enemies who tried to steal an election, calling properly counted non-votes uncounted votes and saying that he deliberately stopped the voting so that he could win. It is Bushs enemies who are calling him a racist. It is the nations number one black organization that linked him with a racial murder in an incendiary tv ad. Yet he is tacitly accepting the charge that he is responsible for dividing the country, and is therefore responsible for healing it.]We do not accept this, and we will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach, because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal in his image. And we are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward.

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. [Oh, great, we have to hear the number-one neocon slogan in Bushs inauguration.] We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

Today we affirm a new commitment to live out our nations promise through civility, courage, compassion and character.

America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness.

Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because in a time of peace the stakes of our debates appear small. But the stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led. If we do not turn the hearts of children toward knowledge and character, we will lose their gifts and undermine their idealism. If we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will suffer most.

We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if keep it, is a way to shared accomplishment. [I take this as a genuine expression of Bushs personality and approach.]America at its best is also courageous. Our national courage has been clear in times of depression and war, when defeating common dangers defined our common good. Now we must chose if the example of our fathers and mothers will inspire us or condemn us. We must show courage in a time of blessing, by confronting problems instead of passing them on to future generations. [A whole paragraph on courage? What empty verbiage.]Together, we will reclaim Americas schools before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives. We will reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from struggles we have the power to prevent. And we will reduce taxes to recover the momentum of our economy and reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans. We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge. We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors.

The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake, America remains engaged in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.

America at its best is compassionate.

In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nations promise. And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault. Abandonment and abuse are not acts of God, they are failures of love. And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for hope and order in our souls.

Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens; not problems, but priorities; and all of us are diminished when any are hopeless. [The whole thing is about our duty to help those in deep, persistent povertyby which hes really referring to poor blacks. But is there deep persistent poverty in this country? How many people are there without clothing food and shelter? Thats what poverty is. Americas blacks are the most prosperous in the world, yet none of that finds its way into his speech. He needs them as victims so as to assert Americasand hisguilt.]Government has great responsibilities, for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government. And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentors touch or a pastors prayer. [Gosh, hes acting as if these needs and hurts and deep persistent poverty and limited ambitions are the biggest issues facing us; this whining constitutes almost his whole domestic agenda!] and Church and charity, synagogue and mosque, lend our communities their humanity and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws.

Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty. But we can listen to those who do. And I can pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side. [How many people are in this pain of poverty? What in the world is he talking about?][He doesnt realize how hes setting up his own demonization by the left. He makes deep poverty and limited ambitions and all the rest of it the primary fact about America, and then all he proposes to do about it are testing schools and vouchers and volunteerism. His opponents can easily say hes not doing anything serious to address these horrible problems that he has identified as the most important thing in the country (just as they can say, whenever he does something that makes his opponents unhappy, that he is violating his pledge to be a uniter not a divider). However, from the conservative point of view, the one welcome thing in the speech is that he really does not seem to be proposing government do anything about all this supposed poverty and misery and injustice. Hes just calling on everyone to be a kind of full-time freelance social-gospel worker.]America at its best is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected. Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it brings a deeper fulfillment. We find the fullness of life, not only in options, but in commitments. And we find that children and community are the commitments that set us free.

Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored acts of decency which give direction to our freedom. [Once again, the image of America he presents is of this vast social welfare crisis that all of must walk around in looking to help the unfortunate. It is an liberal Episcopalian vision of America.]Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small things with great love. The most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone. [This totally feminized vision of everyone in America running around looking to help someone out is sickening.]I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well. In all these dayswaysI will bring the values of our history to the care of our times.

What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort, to defend needed reforms against easy attacks, to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens. Citizens, not spectators. Citizens, not subjects. Responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.

Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves. When this spirit of citizenship is missing, no government program can replace it. When this spirit is present, no wrong can stand against it.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: We know the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?

Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our nations grand story of courage, and its simple dream of dignity. We are not this storys author, who fills time and eternity with his purpose. Yet his purpose is achieved in our duty and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another.

Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today: to make our country more just and generous, to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.

God bless you all, and God bless America.

[Interesting allusion to the conclusion of Lincolns first inaugural: the chorus of the Union will rise when touched by the better angels of our nature. But Lincoln, by contrast, was telling the seceders that they were wrong; wrong in their assumption that Lincoln had designs on their domestic institutions; wrong in their belief that secession was a right under the constitution and not an insurrectionary act. After he made that powerful argument, he called on the better angels of our nature; meaning, he was hoping that his foes and demonizers would hear those angels and drop their secession. Bush, by contrast, takes it as given that the people who doubt the justice of our countryi.e., the protesters in the street yelling Hail to the thiefare right to feel that way, and that it is his duty to show them that he cares.][Overall, he uses a Christian concept of higher truth to advance a social welfare view of America, a place where caring for the unfortunate is the number one job and the primary meaning of life. The Christian part appeals to conservatives, the social welfare part appeals to the left. I dont like it at all.]This essay will rigorously critique Bush's inaugural address frmo a political and rhetorical point of view, addressing his flaws in logic, methods and attempts at persuasion.

Using rhetoric: the political slight of hand

Bush's inaugural address was much different than a typical political speech used

to indicate policy. He had already narrowly won the presidency and this speech was meant to celebrate that victory and to highlight a potentially successful four years for the Bush supporters and the patriotic citizens who would love the speech regardless of its content. However, it is still crucial to recognize Bush's intent behind his inaugural address as it is a calculated political statement meant to persuade the audience of his main argument that he will lead to American ideals, strength and prosperity.

Toward this end, Bush uses his rhetorical slight of hand techniques as he deliberately commits several logical fallacies for emotional effect and as a method for avoiding making direct political argumentation that can be questioned. Specifically, Bush's speech consistently uses the sound byte method: he offers numerous claims

to solving a problem while offering no empirical or logical justification for his assertions. In an issue that often demands serious, specific discussion, Bush evades making unjustified claims in his economic policies as he uses phrases such as "momentum," "enterprise" and "reward the effort" that are clearly words from a pro-capitalism, republican economic point of view. In these sound bytes, Bush is able to sound like he will solve these problems and that he is empathetic to the issues---but without stating a plan or empirical data, he does not offer

himself accountability or arguments that can be made in "response" to his speech. This strategy not only sounds good for people who would support his policies during the address, but it also avoids direct opposition by people who have completely polar views. In his rhetoric, Bush never mentioned his key issues of abortion,

capital punishment, or his pro-rich economic theories""at least he never uses any terms that overtly refer to these issues""as he uses rhetoric and vague language to shove his contentious policies down the throats of his audience without opposition. This is manifest in his statements of foreign policy as Bush makes very subtle

references that never use the terms "imperialism" or "enforcement of values" but that still communicates his imperialist attitudes. For example, Bush disguises his imperial attitude as he claims that America as "a seed upon the wind, taking root in many nations" which makes America's involvement in other nations' domestic affairs sound like the vivid, wonderful image of plants growing into wonderful flowers

instead of military coersion. This same technique exists in Bush's concealment of his military plan as he states that "We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge." In this quote specifically, Bush never explains why U.S. defense is not beyond challenge already or why without more military

power the U.S. will be weak. Yet even such vagueness scores well with the inaugural audience because such meaningless sound bytes still communicate an idea very simply and effectively. It is more appealing to hear "weakness invite challenge" than to hear definitions of weakness, challenge and empirical studies to U.S. military

effectiveness that one would expect (hopefully) in a political debate or an official statement of policy.

Bush not only uses unwarranted claims and vivid rhetoric to disguise his political

views, but he also uses word choice to persuade listeners. Fore example, Bush uses religion as a method for establishing his own authority. Religious piety in politics definitely serves as a method of appealing to authority because it allows someone to use individual's deepest moral beliefs (beliefs in existence, virtue,etc.) and to associate those to particular foreign policies. This is a tactic used by Louis XIV as he would have audiences watch his pray as a role model for other citizens that he was a servant

of God, an unquestionable authority. Entertainers often "thank God" that He (God that is)

allowed them to win their music awards. Clearly, the use of religion is a political and

psychological tactic to get an audience to associate oneself to following the greatest

of all authorities""God.

Bush follows this exact plan in his inauguration address. Bush explains that

"we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, Who creates us equal in His image." The use of the term "we" allows Bush to demonstrate a togetherness with the audience, that together he as well as the listeners are all under the umbrella of religious servitude in political policy. In other words, Bush is using religious rhetoric to relate to the audience as it is a way to say "I am just like you, as we believe the same things." Bush specifically points out the value of religion to the audience as he claims

that "some needs and hutrs are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer"Church and Charity, synagogue and mosque, lend out communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and laws."

Through this argument, Bush shows the audience that his administration will be pro-religion in the next four years of political policy. Also, Bush is very discreetly referencing issues such as the separation of church and state without

ever explicitly saying so. Specifically he is just saying that the church will have

a place in our plans and laws. The most obvious response to Bush's rhetoric is that not all people share the same religion so his strategy is not effective. However, even Bush's listing of various religious places of worship was a

calculated effort as in his speech, he references three of the most popular religions in the world: Judaism (the synagogue), Islam (the "mosque") and Judeo-Christian ("Church and Charity"). In this manner, Bush is using his rhetoric to maximize

his potential to persuade audiences of his pro-religious stance, regardless of their

diversity of religious views.

In the end of his address, Bush fortifies his thesis as he uses all of these previously mentioned strategies when concluding. He references religion and uses sound bytes to make subtle arguments without justification or elaboration as he says "WE are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with His purpose. Yet His purpose is achieved in our duty"And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and

directs this storm." Bush's conclusion is that America, led by his administration will

collectively serve the purposes of God through his policy and concept of duty. With this rhetorical slight of hand, Bush relentlessly keeps repeating these strategies to manipulate people to viewing him as the ultimate of leaders who has a shared concept of America that is idealistic and that is Pro-God. Perhaps Bush illustrates this best when he concludes "God bless you, and God bless our country."

Score another point for calculated rhetoric that doesn't require explanation to

persuade an audience.The President's Inaugural Address: Rhetoric Or Reality?William Montgomery

[send a comment]

There is only one question that counts about President Bush's inaugural address last Thursday: does he really mean it? Will it truly be the policy of the United States of America for the next four years "to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world?" Will we "persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

The President's speech used the word "freedom" 27 times and "liberty" 15 times. It did not address specific problems at all, except by allusion. It was a one-theme speech declaring in the strongest possible terms that the number one policy of the United States of America under the Bush Administration will be the pro-active promotion of democracy around the world.

I believe that the President was thinking of his place in history and trying to emulate the soaring and historic Inaugural Speech of President Kennedy in 1961. If one reads the two speeches, there are superficial similarities in the idealism and appeal to Americans to join in the common cause of spreading freedom and democracy. The problem is that the President has set an impossibly high standard for himself and the United States. Unless he demonstrates now by concrete actions that he is serious, he has opened the door to intense criticism and even ridicule. Every time he meets with the Saudis, he will be asked what he has done to improve the rights of women and dissidents in that country. Every time he meets with Putin, he will be asked about the backsliding in that country when it comes to democracy, let alone the situation in Chechnya.

So why did he do this? The answer is pretty clear. He really believes it. He has evolved into a President who sees himself as being chosen to fulfill a historic mission, which is to bring democracy to the world. Or as he is fond of saying "freedom." It is all pretty black and white to him. Moreover, he has created a Cabinet and inner circle, which will follow his lead with a minimum of dissent. He will be advised closely by the same group of neo-conservatives (Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and other senior officials in the Pentagon) that brought about the disaster in Iraq.

It is worth noting in this regard that in the face of rising criticism in the United States over the Iraq war, the President was crystal clear in saying that his policies were ratified by the results of the recent U.S. election. End of discussion! He seemingly is almost indifferent to the reality on the ground in Iraq, either out of faith in the rightness of his course or a lack of realism in the briefings he is receiving.

It is also noteworthy that a recent article in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh (Subsequently confirmed in the Washington Post) discloses that the Pentagon has been given a far broader mandate and authorization to conduct clandestine missions around the world than ever before. This fits nicely into preparations for future military or clandestine actions against terrorists or others perceived to be potential threats to the United States. As a former Ambassador with extensive experience in dealing with the military, I can say that this is extremely dangerous. In essence, a lot of the checks and balances that we had in place in the United States before any clandestine action was taken anywhere have now been eliminated.

The President's senior aides were quick to go on "background" and explain that the President's speech doesn't really mean dramatic changes in U.S. foreign policy, but simply an "expansion of existing approaches." "It is an acceleration, a raising of the priority," said one. To some extent, that is probably accurate. In the day-to-day business of diplomacy and conducting relations with countries all over the globe, it simply will not be possible to dwell only on democratic values and human rights issues or to make that the sole litmus test for our relations with a particular country. The real world just does not work that way. All too often one has to choose between competing priorities and overlook other concerns.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to dismiss the speech as meaningless rhetoric. I guarantee that in the next four years that the thoughts and pledges made in that speech will be the foundation and justification for the positions we take on a wide range of issues and for the potential of strong action, including military force taken by the United States against one or more countries. Initially, that action may well be diplomatic and attempts to involve international organizations and like-minded allies to change behavior. But as those steps prove insufficient, the rhetoric - and stakes - will inevitably rise.

My best guess is that we can expect in the next year that our attention will increasingly be directed to one or two countries due to a combination of their undemocratic behavior, poor relations with the United States, and their potential threat to acquire, use, or sell weapons of mass destruction, their support for terrorists and possibly a perception that they are working to destabilize Iraq. I believe that the two most likely targets are Syria and Iran. Syria is a candidate because of its history of support for terrorism and for providing refuge and support to the insurgents in Iraq. Iran is even more likely to be selected, due to its budding nuclear program, support for Hitzbullah, and authoritarian government. For a long time now, the European Union has labored hard to convince Iran to abandon its efforts to develop a nuclear capability. Thus far, the efforts have not been successful and the United States has absolutely no faith that they ever will be. That effort, combined with its success in developing a missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, has concerned not only the United States, but Israel as well.

Vice President Cheney a few days ago in an interview raised the possibility that Israel, acting unilaterally, would take military action to stop the Iran weapons program, as it successfully did years ago against Iraq (destroying its nuclear reactor and setting back the Iraqi program by a decade). Unfortunately for Israel or the United States, the Iranian program is far better protected than the Iraqi program had been, and the chances of really destroying it much slimmer. Moreover, while the decision to take action will be under our control or Israel's, the forces which will be unleashed are entirely unpredictable and the consequences perhaps too terrible to contemplate. One of the problems with the President's speech, as well as his decision to intervene in Iraq, is that those steps open the door for others to take similar steps and apply the same justification. We have seen a stronger Israeli response to Palestinian terrorist actions, for example, and strong Russian actions against Chechens portrayed in the same terms as we use for Sept 11.

All of this would give any pragmatic person reason to pause and reflect. I am not sure, however, that President Bush and his advisors think that way. After all, as the President said in his inaugural address "We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." Fasten your seatbelts. As airplane pilots sometimes say, "There may be turbulence ahead."

9