George W. Bush: Lessons from our Past

[1] When describing the “mortal threat” by “regions of the world […] prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder” (Bush, par. 4) in his inaugural address, President George Bush illustrates the importance that fear and trepidation have come to guide his Presidency. The purpose of describing that “mortal threat” in Bush’s speech does not lend itself toward a scholarly analysis of the global political situation, and neither does the speech delineate specific policies to deal with this “mortal threat”. Instead, his use of literary license supports the overall appeal of his speech where he seeks to strike a chord with his audience that makes them more willing to be led.

[2] Not unlike poetic prose, President Bush’s speech is dense in symbolism and metaphoric elements meant to elicit powerful emotional responses. This shows us that the speaker has chosen to use literary license over more precise, factual arguments and language. Specifically, by choosing to use emotional appeal as his persuasive weapon of choice, President Bush attempts to follow other great speakers (Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt among them) in their strategic appeal to their audiences. To perform this task President Bush’s goals are twofold: his speech must establish his credibility as someone who could be trusted to lead, and then the speech must attempt to place the audience in a state where they are more willing to be led by the speaker’s reasoning and appeal. Notice the importance of figurative verbs and adjectives in his literary style.

We have seen our vulnerability – and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny – prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder – violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat.

(Bush, par. 4, emphasis added)

[3] This excerpt of President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address comes close to the beginning of his speech. This passage appears after the formal introductory motions of the inauguration, and also after he establishes the foundation for the speech’s discussion of our “vulnerability” by first describing the “day of fire.” (Bush, par. 3) Together, “day of fire” and the above passage are metonymically linked with September 11^th and the War on Terror; they are associations that would elicit fear, anger, resentment, and other similar memories and reactions from his audience. What follows this excerpt, however, is a passage that seeks to elicit hope, idealism, and other energies from which the people of America could rally around.

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

(Bush, par. 4)

This emotional appeal comes at the cost of intellectual analysis of the conditions or political elements that allow for the enemy to foster. At the same time, the speech’s strength is in its descriptive simplicity that allows ordinary Americans to follow the emotionally arousing literary elements of the speech.

[4] Throughout the speech, President Bush attempts to imply or associate his Presidency as the leader of this great “force of human freedom” that will “break the reign of hatred and resentment”. He continuously requests his audience to “believe the evidence of your eyes” (Bush, par. 23), and states that “My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats.” (Bush, par. 10) After articulating his desire to be a leader who will push the “force of human freedom” and in so doing “protect this nation and its people”, he then moves on to the second purpose of his speech. This is where he delves into our willingness to be led and our willingness to push the same “force of human freedom” with him.

[5] By appearing noble, and describing his greater purpose as President to protect “this nation and its people”, the speaker tries to emulate similar speeches where previous Presidents, as inspirational leaders, appealed to the support of their audiences to be led in a united direction. President Bush’s strategy in his speech is to persistently address his audience to “Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.” (Bush, par. 23) He describes this character as “idealism and courage”, and repetitively defines “America’s ideal of freedom” in broad, universal terms that are nearly impossible to disagree with.

[6] However, by choosing to utilize the broad, universal and literary concepts over the precise and factually substantive arguments that he avoided, President Bush loses the specific purpose that Presidents Roosevelt and Lincoln each had in their speeches, and he loses the unified direction that those other speeches elicited. President Roosevelt in his first fireside chat simply asked for rational behavior in the time of the Great Depression, (“You people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear.”), and President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address hoped specifically to rejuvenate America’s capacity for fighting the Civil War (“It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on.”). Through their use of language, each of these Presidents used their speeches and their ability to speak to the American people at large as a tool to organize their listeners to act responsively. Bush, however, asks for too much or is too vague in his request, and the effect of his speech is diluted.

[7] Compared to Roosevelt and Lincoln, President Bush asks for a range of goals (“freedom” and “liberty”) which he has broadly defined to include “America’s ideal of freedom” (Bush, pars. 25, 26, 27). He loosely defines such statements to include “private character”, “service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak”, and “the dignity and security of economic independence”. None of these requests ask for specific actions such as an entreaty to stay away from banks until they are fiscally stable again (Roosevelt), or to continue the Civil War despite hardships already encountered (Lincoln). Perhaps the positive populous reaction that moved people to continue fighting the Civil War or stay away from banks was not apparent after the respective speeches of their Presidents, but time has come to show that their speeches did have an effect; and in the end the banks survived, and the war continued until the North reunited with the South. Instead of requesting a specific action from his audience, President Bush asks more for a state of mind so that his specific policies can be fit into these ideologies. Thus, compared to the speeches made by Roosevelt and Lincoln, President Bush’s speech is made less effective, because he asks for more from the audience than he reasonably and substantively addresses in his argument.

[8] When George W. Bush stated that “we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.” (Bush, par. 24), people in general did not know how to show that “meaning and promise of liberty.” Bush did not specify that Americans needed to be more attentive in electoral politics in order to show “the meaning and promise of liberty”, or state that they could donate more to a local charitable organization, or implore them to volunteer more in a local school or church. This lack of specificity wastes the emotional energy of his speech, because there is no way for Americans to carry on the force of his address. Thus, his speech will diminish with time, as opposed to instances in other speeches where Americans responded positively and that President’s speech lives on.

[9] The foremost strategy of George Bush’s Second Inaugural is to inspire. Once his audience is awed and energized into an emotionally heightened state, George Bush specifically moves to project that energy to support his policies and politics. He utilizes creative literary devices to heighten the effect of his speech. But the major flaw of Bush’s Second Inaugural Address is that even though it effectively concentrates its strength in its emotional appeal, it can hardly substantiate itself to intellectual analysis—it cannot grow organically with time through the actions of its listeners. George Bush stretches his argument far too broadly for his audience to take a specific argument meaningfully to heart as they have with other speeches. This speech then will not be remembered for its efficacy in riling up the American populace, but as another generic speech that will fade as others are continuously etched into the American consciousness.