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.
Very nice summary and very accurate, too, I think.
This was not a speech that was delivered in order to instantly rally a team for a game that's about to start in 3 minutes.
It was a speech that needs to have much more longevity. It needs to last over the long haul.
My information is that 20 or more persons wrote this thing, and it reads like the work of a (loony) committee.