The State of the Union, Part II: The Rhetoric
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published January 26, 2007, 10:27 am in News, Rhetoric.
As I discussed last time in part I of my analysis of the 2007 State of the Union address, there are three primary sections of Bush's speech:
I. The Economy and Policy Reforms
II. The War on Terror
III. America's Mission and Examples of American Heroism
These sections are further subdivided into several others. I then discussed how Bush organizes the speech into a plan to win support for his war on terror, the primary portion of the speech. He begins with extraneous policies that lead into the war on terror and then goes into how the war on terror is simply a part of the U.S.'s heroism and responsibility in the world, giving examples of how individuals have exhibited this same heroism that the U.S. as a whole can manifest on a global scale.
This time, I will concentrate on the language Bush used in his speech, for his speechwriters know what they're doing, and they are in control of the language. This speech is actually rather subdued, at least when compared to his previous speeches. There is no reference to the "axis of evil" or the "Author of Liberty," as has been included in his previous speeches. Here, he is content with pretty straightforward wording, for the most part dismissing the metaphors. He still uses some figurative and allusive language, and I want to point out the instances where he does this, including the effect that they have.
First, however, I have to mention Bush's press conference this morning. He appeared with the new commander of American forces in Iraq, Army Lieutenant General Petraeus. Here, Bush has this interesting exchange with a reporter:
QUESTION: The other night in your State of the Union address, you asked Congress to give your plan a chance. But lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, didn't really miss a step in starting to turn out resolutions against that plan. Why do you think it's okay to go ahead without their support?
THE PRESIDENT: One of the things I've found in Congress is that most people recognize that failure would be a disaster for the United States. And in that I'm the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster. In other words, I had to think about what's likely to work.
And there Bush goes again: "I'm the decision maker." Yes, you are, Mr. President, and I hope you make the right decision. What I don't like about it is that he's basically flubbing his nose of Congress. He's saying, yeah, you can say whatever you want and pass all the resolutions you want, but I'm still gonna do what I want.
But then comes the statement I like:
BUSH: And so I worked with our military and I worked with Secretary Gates to come up with a plan that is likely to succeed. And the implementor of that plan is going to be General Petraeus. And my call to the Congress is, is that I know there is skepticism and pessimism, and that they are -- some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work. And they have an obligation and a serious responsibility, therefore, to put up their own plan as to what would work.
That, I like. One thing I can't stand is when people simply criticize, and I mean anyone. If you're going to criticize something, you have to have an alternative, or you use the criticism as dialogue to reach a consensus solution. But to criticize simply to criticize is not only unfruitful but counterpreductive. So to everyone in the Senate who claims that Bush's plan is wrong, Bush is saying that he wants a viable alternative. And he states at the outset that the one alternative people suggest--pulling out of Iraq--is not an alternative.
I appreciate that sentiment, but Bush just comes across like a whiny playground bully--"I'm the decision maker."
"A defining hour"
Now to return to the matter at hand--the State of the Union address.
"The rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour, when decisions are hard and courage is needed."
The idea that the present time is a moment of decision, or a "defining hour" is a great one. It says that the present time is important in the grand scheme, that what is decided now will make a difference in the future. Basically, Bush is telling us to pay attention and to way our decisions because they will have consequences in the future. It's about Iraq, but it's also a general statement about how Democrats and Republicans will play together.
The last part of the statement is actually a veiled slight on the Democrats. He does it several times throughout the address, and I have a feeling that these comments will get worse as the fight over Iraq wages on. Basically, he is blaming the Democrats for wanting to pull out of Iraq. They don't have the courage to make the hard decisions that are necessary to be able to win. Near the middle of the speech, he says "Let us find our resolve and turn events toward victory." In other words, the Democrats don't have the resolve to do what it takes.
"We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies, and the wisdom to face them together."
Bush uses innocuous words that have more meaning to Christians, too. Here, it is the word "wisdom." Other words and phrases that crop up include "keep faith," "guard America against all evil," and others as the speech goes on. These words and phrases sound just fine to the non-Christian, but they mean more to the Christian. They are the words and phrases that the preacher uses, and they like it when the President adopts the same.
Bush doesn't generally use those phrases and allusions when he talks about policy. While he discusses all of the accomplishments and policies, he sounds like any other politician. It isn't really until he gets to Iraq that the metaphor comes back.
One example, howeve,r is when he says that "States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick." It isn't exactly a reference to a Bible verse, but it's similar to several points in Isaiah where God talks about the "sick and needy" and how important it is to care for them. It's also similar to Luke 14:13, where Jesus says, "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind." Again, it isn't word for word, but the gist is there.
Iraq
With Iraq, the complexities begin, and it begins with the argument that "America is still a nation at war." It's the familiar war on terror, and we're invovled in it in Iraq. Stating that we're at war gives the President special powers, too, and it's no coincidence that it's a war without an endpoint. It's like the Cold War--What do you call a lack of war when you really want to be at war? A Cold War, of course.
The terrorists are "radicals," and "This war is more than a clash of arms. It is a decisive ideological struggle." That has always been Bush's idea, and he even uses the words from the book "Clash of Civilizations."
Much of the speech becomes about "the consequences of failure," which are "grievous and far reaching." The words "consequences" has its negative connotations here, and it makes us pay attention again. If we listen to those who don't want to win in Iraq the consequences will be devastating, and it will leave the U.S. at risk.
He alludes to the Bible again: "Ladies and gentlemen, on this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle." It is an allusion to Mark 13:32, where Jesus says, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Here, I'm not sure how Bush is using the allusion. It really doesn't make sense to me. It's the same language, or at least very similar, and the way Bush speaks it, it sounds like prophecy, but I'm not sure what the allusion helps us to understand. It may be just another case where it helps Bush to sound like that preacher. It could refer to the other passage in the speech where Bush calls the war on terror "the defining struggle of time," and Bush is claiming that the time to make the difficult decisions regarding our future is now. The point of the Biblical passage is that salvation must be chosen now--there is no time to delay becuase the end could come at any point. The same is true of the decisions that we make; we cannot predict the future and so we must choose to do everything in our power to protect ourselves from what may come.
America's Call
The last passage I want to explore is near the end:
"American foreign policy is more than a matter of war and diplomacy. Our work in teh world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required."
It is a loose quote of Luke 12:48: "8But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
It is a "timeless truth," according to Bush, and it's a sentiment that Christians recognize. Even if the majority of the population thinks it's a reference to the line at the end of Spiderman, it's still Biblical.
That's what is so interesting about Bush's rhetoric. He peppers it with things that only certain groups will recognize. And for that, it's quite masterful.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment