Posted on 01/22/2004 8:25:29 AM PST by .cnI redruM
It's been a long time since George W. Bush could address a national audience with the quiet confidence that he would benefit from the soft punditry of low expectations. After an eloquent inaugural address and two well-written and well-delivered State of the Union messages, Bush's oratorical skills can no longer be "misunderestimated," to borrow his term.
So there's no mistaking that Wednesday night's State of the Union address was more partisan and pedestrian than any other major speech Bush has given. Still, it was more than adequate as a kick-off for Bush's reelection campaign--and as a preview of the rhetorical techniques he will use to defend his record and define his eventual Democratic rival:
Simplicity as Smokescreen: Bush's speechwriters have turned his well-known weaknesses into a source of strength, creating a rhetoric that's credible coming from him, with short words, simple sentences, and religious resonances. The result is good, often great, American English--Hemingway, not Henry James. Moreover, his simple style subliminally reinforces a central theme of his presidency: that he is a decent, trustworthy, plain-spoken man, unlike his glib predecessor.
This year's State of the Union had more weasel words ("weapons of mass destruction-related program activities") and less plain-spoken poetry than his earlier speeches. But, still, there were plenty of declarative sentences. ("The terrorists declared war on America, and war is what they got.") And Bush benefits from most people's predisposition to believe that simplicity reflects straightforwardness.
Religious Resonances: Now that almost every politician quotes the Bible, Bush goes the others one better by sprinkling scriptural references into his speeches without citing the verse, the hymn, or the prayer he's alluding to. His religiously resonant rhetoric--"every willing heart," "wonder working power," "nobody knows the hour"--appeals directly to the most observant audiences without alienating those who are more secular. So do his continuing references to right and wrong, good and evil. With its reference to "religious congregations" as "unseen pillars of civilization" and no noticeable scriptural passage, this year's State of the Union seemed scripted more by neocons who respect religion than evangelicals who practice it.
Getting You Nodding in Agreement: The structures of the last two State of the Union speeches were both counterintuitive and, therefore, must have been carefully planned. Last year, with Bush preparing for war with Iraq, domestic policy preceded national security, cultivating the impression that the president preferred to be a man of peace.
This year, with surveys showing that Bush is strongest on national security and weakest on the economy, the war on terrorism came first, lending him an aura of effectiveness when he turned to domestic issues. In his treatment of terrorism, the sequence of subjects was half the argument. First came a report on his actions against Al Qaeda. Then came the victory in Afghanistan against the Taliban. Then, and only then, came the war with Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein--implicitly equating them with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Then came a discussion of successful negotiations with Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi to eliminate his "weapons of mass murder"--proof that toughness gets results. Then came the less successful efforts with North Korea--but by then, he was already batting .750.
Mr. Subliminal: Most of Bush's speech sought to convince his audience by making implicit, not explicit, claims. The ten references to "war" made clear that he is a wartime president--part of a line that includes Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The references to dangers that others would ignore placed him in the tradition of FDR and Winston Churchill, resolutely challenging isolationists and appeasers. The attacks on those who "view terrorism as crime," want to "take away ... prescription drug coverage," or favor a "government-run health care system" all imply that his political opponents--Howard Dean? John Kerry?--actually favor such positions. More intriguingly, if you substitute the first-person-singular pronoun for "we" or "America," Bush was describing the nation in the same terms that his campaign will seek to present him--"called to great responsibilities," "rising to meet them," "rising to the tasks of history," and "strong and confident." As for his opponents, why else is Bush repeatedly attacking trial lawyers (John Edwards), domestic partnership policies (in Howard Dean's Vermont and John Kerry's Massachusetts), and, more generally, policies of the past (Bill and Hillary Clinton and perhaps their pal, Wesley Clark)?
Back to the Future: Early in his speech, Bush led with his chin when he declared: "Now we face a choice: We can go forward with confidence and resolve--or we can turn back...." Other presidents, among them Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, used this rhetorical device when running for reelection, but, by the time they were saying this, the country was indisputably in better shape than when they had taken office. Now, things are better than they were halfway through Bush's first term but not better than when he was inaugurated. So what exactly don't we want to "turn back" to? Peace? Prosperity? Prestige in the world? The worst Bush conjures up from the bad old days is "the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us" (views Clinton never held) and "the old policies and old divisions" (although politics is as polarized now as it was four years ago, if not more so).
Dare to Be Small: Entering office without a plurality of the popular vote or a reputation as a national leader, Bush gave himself stature by pursuing great goals--a $1.7 trillion tax cut, a worldwide war on terrorism, and the partial privatization of Social Security. Now he's sufficiently confident to pursue Clintonian micro-initiatives--a job training initiative, a modest effort at drug testing in the schools, and a call for athletes to stop using steroids (but what about body-building governors of California?). The point is to show his heart is in the right place, not to put the people's money where their values are.
Channeling Dick Nixon: If Bush's national security rhetoric could have been written by Dick Cheney and his domestic initiatives could have been inspired by Dick Morris, then his stance on social issues could have been scripted by Dick Nixon. More than three decades ago, Nixon mainstreamed the white backlash by attacking social engineers, not racial minorities. In his treatment of gay marriage, Bush is doing something similar, attacking "activist judges," not gays and lesbians. At a time when Americans are becoming more tolerant, this is smart politics.
What's the State of the Union Got to Do with It?: Lost in all this rhetoric are the realities of Americans' lives and the country's condition--how many jobs have been lost, how many families have lost their health insurance, how little wages have increased, and how high the deficit has grown. That, of course, leaves an opening for the president's Democratic opponents. Their challenge will be to discuss the real state of the union in terms that are as clear as Bush's.
Apologists for the Clinton Recession never stop.
Not much. It is a thinly veiled attempt to paint a false picture of President Bush.
NO, Because then you would still be leaving out WTC1, The assassination attempt on Bush41, The Twin Embassy Bombings, The Khobar Towers, The Cole, And Oklahoma City (and it doesn't matter who you believe is ultimately responsible.....I do find Jayna D credible...) It happened, and you and I both know that if some Left Wing crazy managed to take down a Fed Bldg (I am thinking ELF) it would somehow be Bushs fault for poor environmental policy.
8 years of a blind eye toward the gathering terrorist storm.
Yeah, on the left side of the path.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.