Well, I read it, Bush. The speech. Every word of it. And who but the churliest of churls could disagree with your panegyric championing "liberty" and "freedom" all around the globe? I didn't make the count myself, but someone this morning had done the counting for me: forty-nine times you used the words. (Is there a difference, I wonder, between them? Or are they interchangeable?) Anyway, the way I see it, it's an inarguable ideal, and I'm with you: everyone in the world does indeed deserve to enjoy the rights that we associate with freedom.
But, listen, Bush, I do have a couple of problems with your speech, and it would be dishonest of me not to put them out for you to hear. One of them had to do with tone. To start with, that "we've got it, you ought to have it, we're going to help you get it, whether you ask for it or not" kind of attitude is likely to make more enemies than friends. One critique I read this morning in the Los Angeles Times used the word "messianic", and that one word caught the tone that I'm referring to. It's not only the grandiosity of your vision, your assumption of superior, even god-like understanding of the world, its neeeds, and the problems that beset it; it's also the religious fervor that--however subtly--pervaded the language of your speech. Was that reference to all of us bearing "the image of the maker of heaven and Earth" really necessary? And how about those more subliminal references to the words of biblical texts and hymns? The "release of captives", for example, or the "day of fire", or the "author of liberty"? Tell me there weren't messages buried in there, for the faithful.
And here's my second worry: the devil, as the saying goes, is in the detail--the implementation. I wouldn't even bring this up, because I understand that an inauguration speech is not about the detail, but about the big picture. But you can't avoid the context of the recent past when you speak in these big terms. Your talk of freedom all around the globe, for me, rather than evoking the image of world peace, raised the specter of threats, and threats of bombs, and bombs. It brought to mind words like "If you're not with us, you're against us," and "Bring it on!" (I read, also this morning, of your Cheney's newest sabre-rattling, this time toward Iran, on the Don Imus radio show--and on the very same day as your inauguration: a curious counterpart to your conciliatory tone.) Don't tell me that this was simply your Vice President mouthing off-the-cuff. I don't believe that anything in your administration is unplanned. Except, of course, for those non-existent mistakes. But, really, is this is to be our way of supporting "the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture" and "ending tyranny in our world?" It smells a bit tyrannical to me.
In the next breath, turning to our problems here at home, you spoke of "divisions, which must be healed to move forward to great purposes," and promised to "strive in good faith to heal them." Again, fine words. But the context bothers me: is it "good faith", even before your inauguration, to rush to resubmit the nomination of twenty judges previous rejected by the loyal opposition on the grounds of their extremist views? Is the plan for "privatization" of the Social Security system put forward in a good faith effort to heal divisions? Is it "good faith" for your Rice to sit before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and deny any smallest error of judgment in the Iran fiasco, or grossly misrepresent the current situation there with regard to the training and preparation of Iraqi troops?
I guess it comes back down to a question of trust, Bush. The words sounded good. Who could quarrel with the ideal of "freedom in all the world"? But these words don't come devoid of context: they come in the shadow of four years of actions past, and actions now contemplated, begging the question of the integrity of words and deeds, ideals and implementation. It would be great, Bush, if your actions in the coming year prove my skepticism groundless. If they do, as we Brits used to say, I'll be the first to eat my hat. Or at the very least, some good, old, homegrown American crow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Excellent commentary, but you're too gentle. The hypocrisy of this administration begs for body blows. These people are liars and killers using the messianic mask as cover. Did you hear about the sidewalk beheadings of two Iraqis who were killed for making deliveries to American military bases? I actually viewed them; there are two separate videos. Have you ever watched a beheading? It's like witnessing the slaughter of a trussed and blindfolded pig, a repeated sawing and hacking through the neck, in this case while chanting the religious mantras: "Allah is great," and "Kill the infidels." God is on their side. They kill because their religion gives them permission, and Bush's God rhetoric is no different. I think our leader should preside over a beheading to give dimension to his words. Evidently his National Guard training didn't teach him anything. At the end of the second video the killers prop the head on top of the prone body, like a trophy. What can one say to things like this? My words are poor in comparison; they cannot compete with the banality of the sidewalk or the shaky camcorder image, the invisible pain. Like you and me, these poor men had families, and those families will never be the same, but this is of no consequence to those killers, any more than it is to Bush or to his pack of dogs. Thanks to his self-righteous Christian beliefs such things will be happening over and over again, not just to Iraqis, but to American families. Of course, the Iraqis don't count. Neither do the lies that have led and will lead to more deaths like this.
Bush's rhetoric is detached from the realities of its effects. Bush did mean "Bring it on." He meant it absolutely, despite the recent spin (euphemism for doublespeak, i.e. lie). It is a true spontaneous marker of who he is and how he thinks, or better, how he doesn't. This is a thoughtless, egomaniacal, and miguided man who is driven by emotional difficulties he has never dealt with. He appears to have the classic mindset of a dry alcoholic who "found religion" and thinks he's "cured." Apparently this had made him a spokesperson for God. To my mind, such "cures" are a poor substitute for the hard work of personal insight into the managing of addictions which, I am told, generates compassion, humility, and even wisdom into the complexities of the human heart. Instead, this pathetically inadequate and spoiled man of little character lives out his problems in public, making them the world's, which is what the worst world leaders always do. What makes him so different from Saddam Hussein? Just as, what makes this little man's father, Bush Sr, different from Saddam Hussein? Didn't Bush Sr. buy and pay for Saddam with U.S. money, supply the arms, the very chemicals that were used on the Kurds? Didn't he also authorize Saddam's use of the helicopters that decimated the Shiite uprising in southern Iraq after the first Gulf War? Explain to me what the difference is. Explain to me how the blood on the hands of these men is a different color.
But, maybe all this is good for us. Bush's foolishness and blindness expose us for the blind fools that WE are, at least half of us in this country. I fear that most American citizens, too many of whom read little and, therefore, are as diminished in their capacity to think beyond a sound bite as our fair leader is, exist in a state of denial about the truth of what the good 'ole U.S. has been up to in the world in the last 50 years. Our footprint is not pretty, not by a long shot, and it's time that we, the American public, wake up to who we really are and what we have done. When we do so, we will no longer be surprised as to why the guns have been turned on us. We are not innocent victims. Our government has been in direct and surrogate pursuit of its interests at the expense of human beings in countless Third World countries who cannot defend themselves. We have been happy to oppress them, just read the various remarks Kissinger made to Pinochet about human rights to have a taste. We are the greedy elephant in the room, but all we Americans see is the benefit that our rampant consumption of the world's resources gives us. Iraq is just another piece of that plan, all gussied up in the name of a freedom we not only shun in our policies abroad, but are in damned short suppy of here, where what is left is daily going down the drain. When we stop pretending and come to understand our crimes and, hopefully, experience the collective shame we have earned and deserve, we will be poised to gain an authentic position of respect in the world community. There is a price for hubris in all human affairs, and no amount of money or power can allay the working out of that law. We are seeing it in action. We are self destructing. We have become a ridiculous nation prancing about in our Emperor's new clothes--and weren't they worth the $40 million spent on the inaugural?
Post a Comment