Posted on 01/21/2005 4:19:45 AM PST by Mikmur
PEGGY NOONAN
Way Too Much God Was the president's speech a case of "mission inebriation"?
The inaugural address itself was startling. It left me with a bad feeling, and reluctant dislike. Rhetorically, it veered from high-class boilerplate to strong and simple sentences, but it was not pedestrian. George W. Bush's second inaugural will no doubt prove historic because it carried a punch, asserting an agenda so sweeping that an observer quipped that by the end he would not have been surprised if the president had announced we were going to colonize Mars. A short and self-conscious preamble led quickly to the meat of the speech: the president's evolving thoughts on freedom in the world. Those thoughts seemed marked by deep moral seriousness and no moral modesty.
The president's speech seemed rather heavenish. It was a God-drenched speech. This president, who has been accused of giving too much attention to religious imagery and religious thought, has not let the criticism enter him. God was invoked relentlessly. "The Author of Liberty." "God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind . . . the longing of the soul."
And yet such promising moments were followed by this, the ending of the speech. "Renewed in our strength--tested, but not weary--we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." This is--how else to put it?--over the top. It is the kind of sentence that makes you wonder if this White House did not, in the preparation period, have a case of what I have called in the past "mission inebriation." A sense that there are few legitimate boundaries to the desires born in the goodness of their good hearts.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
And Islam! Don't forget Islam. Bush sure didn't. Guess he thinks we are a conduit of the prophesies of Mohammed as well.
So I am to take it from Bush that the IRS and tax attorneys are sent by God as a modern visitation of the trials of Job? Man - like get a clue.
Poor Peggy, the more I think about it the more I think the gal's having a midlife crisis.
What happened to God Bless America? The Battle hymn of the Republic (I counted nine bands in the parade play this, but nowhere in the ceremony) , America the Beautiful? Of all the patriotic American music what did they choose?
Maker -1
You said it.
Sounds like Noonan is just a wee bit jealous. LOL
I wonder what Noonan would think of Lincoln's second inaugural address? Where Lincoln mentioned God no less than 12 times.
Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1865
Fellow-Countrymen:
At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
As I said before in different words...the State of the Union speech is about specifics. An inaugural speech is about vision. One doesn't have to be "all-knowing" to get that point, and Peggy misses it totally.
...ironic, for a supposedly skillful speech writer.
So you liked Clinton's speeches too?
You are contradicting yourself. Mostly, however, you are wrong and offensively so.
I agree.
The music for me was to honor individual talents and the words to these songs fit the ceremony. I know it is a personal taste.
President Bush's second inaugural address was probably the most historical speech he will make in his life. Historians, for some reason, look to inaugural speeches for direction. They don't pour over states of the union the way they do inaugurals. Inaugurals occur less often and speak frequently of long and broad philosophy. Bush's was the first since 9/11. It will be compared to Washington's first and Lincoln's second. He wrote this to be read by historians or to be played on A&E, not for us, sitting here, with our own expectations for the speech.
Peggy said it was over the top. I'm sure "ask not what your country..." seemed over the top at the time, too. "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." -- nonsensical, even in context. No, inaugural addresses need to be a little grander, a little more absurd, a little more abstract. In fact, the point of a second inaugural is to sit back, after doing hard practical work, to see what had happened and to dream about what might be. A lot of it is unrealistic, but this is why we dream. For a people without kings, without much history, without an ancient culture upon which to draw, we need dreams in our civic life and inaugurals provide us with such.
The inauguration critics wanted Bush to give the speech that they expected to hear. His brilliance is that he surprises everyone.
That was a slam at Reagan-style conservatism. Not only was it undeserved by the late Ronaldus Magnus, but it helped perpetuate the Left's stereotyping of conservatism as "mean-spirited."
I SO agree with you. W has done wonders in getting us past that horrible phrase. "Compassionate conservatism" is vigorous, swift and active. "Kinder, gentler" is limp, guilty and ashamed.
Silly boy.
James Baker more than any other person made sure the last election wasn't stolen iin Florida. For that, James Baker deserves something better than you have given him. some respect might be good. And you sure are good with knowing what happened with Noonan. Maybe you are right, but maybe not. And your using the term "elites" sort of makes me wonder. I like our elites,,,it is the lib elites I don't like.
It was vapid and saccharine alternately.
Sorry.
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.