Posted on 01/21/2005 12:29:43 PM PST by baseball_fan
The inaugural address was in several respects confusing. The arresting feature of it was of course the exuberant idealism. But one wonders whether signals were crossed in its production, and a lead here is some of the language used.
The commentators divulged that the speech was unusual especially in one respect, namely that President Bush turned his attention to it the very next day after his reelection. Peggy Noonan and Karen Hughes, speaking in different television studios, agreed that this was unusual. Presidents attach great importance to inaugural addresses, but they don’t, as a rule, begin to think about them on the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But in this case, that is evidently what happened. And this leads the observer to wonder about some of the formulations that were used, and clumsiness that was tolerated.
Mr. Bush said that “whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny.” You can simmer in resentment, but not in tyranny. He said that every man and woman on this earth has “matchless value.” What does that mean? His most solemn duty as President, he said, was to protect America from “emerging threats.” Did he mean, guard against emerging threats? He told the world that “there can be no human rights without human liberty.” But that isn’t true. The acknowledgment of human rights leads to the realization of human liberty. “The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them.” What is a “habit of control”?
An inaugural address is a deliberate statement, not an improvisation. Having been informed about how long the president spent in preparing it, the listener is invited to pay special attention to its message...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I've been on record stating conservative, or Liberal, I do not care.
If I were in Australia I'd have voted for Howard. If in Great Britian, I'd vote for Blair. Here in America I vote for G.W. I have great respect for people like Ron Silver, and in common with those like Rush. This is a non partisan issue for me, though obviously in the U.S. more conservatives have joined than Liberals.
I know what I believe, I know what we are fighting, I believe strongly in this course and "Liberal" or "conservative", if someone advocates the opposite I will be in opposition to them even if they are considered "icons".
The President's agenda is courageous, it is visionary, and it is practical. I react passionately because the stakes are high, but as a former isolationist pre-9/11 I am a firm convert of this policy.
I did. The definition of "simmering" does not fit the situation in my opinion. I understand the point you & Bush were making however. I would have chosen different words.
I have no problem with a grounded opinion. But groundless opinions are the chief preserve of liberals.
How so? And why is "class" so important to you?
I love Buckley, I really do, but all this amounts to is that Bush didn't use familiar phrases, he used new phrases. There is a difference between the imprecise expression and the unfamiliar expression, Bill, and these are the latter. What is a "habit of control"? Is it ok if it is a new way of evaluating political systems? And is it ok if the President of the United States coins just such a new rubric of critique in his second Inaugaral? Indeed, if you don't hear such new political heuristics at Inaugeration speeches where would you EXPECT to hear them?
Just because it is not in the State Department's thumbed lexicon doesn't mean it is not allowed to exist.
Buckley and Noonan are being petulant. They want to be consulted when there is an effort to break new rhetorical ground on the Right, and they weren't.
Either that, or the whole world has been so benumbed by 8 years of Clinton saying exactly NOTHING memorable that they now expect it.
Well said, and I agree with you.
I think you make some good points but I would put Buckley's
commentary into two categories. First, few conservative writers
know more about the proper use of language than Buckley
and Safire. Thus, perhaps in context, "guard" would be a
better word than "protect." One cannot literally "simmer
in tyranny". And "habit of control" obviously means a
tradition of keeping tight control over people. And "matchless value" refers to the sanctity of the individual given in Judeo-Christian tradition. But these
points all have to do with semantics and synonyms. Second,
the gravamen of Buckley's argument seems to have been lost
in disputes over phraseology. The really important question Buckley
raised was about the inconsistency of proclaiming "liberty"
in Wilsonian terms for all the world while we are aligned
with oppressive despotisms (and supporters of terrorism)
like Saudi Arabia. Noonan's commentary was critical but
in a totally way than Buckley's. She seemed to be more
bothered by its religious overtones. I've heard the pundits
criticize the address because it said too little about this
or too much about that. What can one expect in a 17 minute
speech? A catalogue and recipe for all the problems of
the world?
All opinions require neither defence nor attack. That's why they're called opinions.
The judgement of whether they are groundless or not often itself can be quite arbitrary.
Respectfully, what would you have preferred to hear from the president?
Ok, let's go over again why you think the speech was so bad.
I didn't post this. But class is important. It's one of the many things that differentiates us from the Clintons.
The term is not the best at all for the thought Bush was trying to con-vie
There are many that live under tyranny that do not agree with the dictator, but who are not willing to speak up. Sharansky terms them "double-thinkers" to distinguish them from the dissidents and the "true believers" who agree with the dictator.
The double-thinkers could be described as "simmering" I think.
Not really.
The speech wasn't foncusing. If Buckley doesn't know what "matchless value" means, he is a moron.
confusing, not foncusing...lol
protect and guard. That is his quibble.
My word, Buckely is anal retentive.
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.