The Speech Heard 'Round The World
By Vincent Fiore (01/25/05)
One of the more obvious idiosyncrasies concerning President Bush, one can always tell when his heart fully believes what his mouth is saying. Contrast the inauguration speech given on Thursday against his occasional press conferences and interviews, and the differences are night and day.
In settings outside of a "big soulful moment," like parrying with the press corps, or even the 2004 State of the Union speech, Bush does not rise to the moment. For in those settings, it is not Bush the visionary, but rather Bush the functionary.
In Bush's 2004 State of the Union speech, he scratched the surface of many issues. To me, it wasn't until Bush started talking about the war on terrorism that his eyes held a conviction of the heart, and his words commanded the attention of all present to focus in and listen.
Bush's inauguration speech was not just 20 minutes of verbal flourishes and sterile patriotism. No. It was a conviction of the heart.
The Critics
The critics among the mainstream media wasted little time in making their feelings known. Among the complaints--and this was cited by some conservative voices as well--were Bush's “constant” references to God.
In this inauguration speech of 2075 words, I counted references to the Almighty only five times, which includes Bush's trademark “may God bless you” at the close of his speech.
Compare this speech to JFK’s or LBJ’s inauguration speeches, and Bush comfortably stays outside the bounds of overt references to God.
Concerning the domestic portion of Bush’s speech, the talking heads were just as indignant: What of Social Security, they scornfully cried? Tax reform, and Tort reform? Where are the details?
Then, too, the press also barked about the omission of specific words. Bush did not mention the words “terrorism” or “Iraq” in his speech, the absence of which has set off alarm bells in editorial rooms around the world.
Instead, Bush nudged alongside these two specific words which have so prominently become a daily part of the American citizen’s lexicon. Without having to categorically say those two words, nearly all of Bush’s speech was relevant to terrorism, and the real politick plan of the war in Iraq, and its implications to America and Democracy.
Perhaps though, no single part of Bush’s inauguration speech gave the media more fits than Bush’s vision of “freedom” and “liberty” for all who desire it.
The Visionaries
Indeed, the use of these two specific words, used in all their forms, totaled 52 times. This president, as others before him, has used the inauguration speech as a platform for American idealism, and as a call to great things from our fellow man.
Politics is the oldest of all professions, replete with a history that is dutifully looked upon by today’s American presidents. We have seen these world-encompassing ideals and sweeping calls to greatness before:
-In 1917, Woodrow Wilson stated “We shall be the more American if we but remain true to the principles in which we have been bred. They are not the principles of a province or of a single continent. We have known and boasted all along that they were the principles of a liberated mankind.”
-In FDR’s 1941 inauguration speech, he told Americans that “in the face of great perils never before encountered, our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy.”
-In 1985, President Reagan echoed these same lofty sentiments by stating that “Americans courageously supported the struggle for liberty, self-government, and free enterprise throughout the world, and turned the tide of history away from totalitarian darkness and into the warm sunlight of human freedom.”
The President’s Policy
George W. Bush’s speech was about freedom and liberty for all who desire it. As Bush said, it is the “calling of our time.” But in my mind, it has always been the calling throughout time. As the world stands today, there are 119 electoral democracies--89 free and 30 partly free-- of the world's 192 states, according to Freedom House.org, the premiere gatekeeper of such knowledge.
This is a far cry from the world as it looked in 1940, where the total number of “free countries” was under 20. Was it arrogant, or “hubristic,” as the media talking heads are parroting, for Bush to dare such dreams of freedom for all?
Maybe, but then again, you may feel differently after reading this one little item, again from Freedom House: “According to a Freedom House analysis of global terrorist attacks of a five year period from 1999-2003, 70 percent of all attributable deaths by terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and terrorist movements originating in Not Free countries. By contrast, only 8 percent of global fatalities from terrorism were perpetrated by terrorists and groupings with origins in the free world.”
Something tells me that Bush is on the right path here. When our previous presidents have called for and expressed much of the same ideals as Bush has, and we see a world that has been transformed through Democracy, it is not only Bush’s right to petition America for “the calling of our time,” but I think it is also his duty to do this.
The ideals of freedom and liberty may do more to stop terrorism in the long run than the barrel of a gun. As Bush stated in his speech, the naysayers--who know better--have seen the historic and global appeal of liberty take root these last few decades. As Bush said, and I agree with, “This is an odd time for doubt.”
To view the big picture, one must have the big vision that goes with it.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Vincent Fiore
