We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Bush’s speech I dunno about you, but I was bored stiff. I was driving home from work when it came on the radio, and I damn near dozed off and drove into a light pole.
Sure, the delivery was that kind of Rotary Club tumpty-tump that we have come to expect from W, but really, substance aside, couldn’t the text have been a lot better? This is just mediocre writing, the kind of dull crap that I expect from a third-rate consulting firm, not from what should be the pinnacle of any writer’s career.
In this particular war, in which all the meaningful battles are being fought between the ears of Iraqis, Americans, and a handful of other nationalities, having such an ineffective communications team on our side is probably worth at least an armored division to the Islamonutters.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
‘T other thing that’s most noticeable about it to a foreigner is the venue.
It makes the US look militaristic and bellicose in what’s supposed to be a peacemaking and reconstruction phase. And all this speaking to military audiences contributes to an impression that this is the Pentagon’s war, and the President as CinC is a like a CEO reporting back to his shareholders.
He ought to be making his case before people representing the civilian public to emphasise the political control and purpose. Even a Republican rally would be better.
I couldn’t disagree more.
As any good advertising pro will tell ya, KISS (keeping it simple stupid) is the key in such matters – with plenty of repetition.
When providing a status report on a long-term project, one does not need to invoke clever prose to describe the mission and current realities. Stark, unambiguous language is what’s called for, not flowery prose.
The key message last night was that the US is keeping its word – that the big picture objective is unchanged. That, as we approach the June 30th deadline, things are likely to get more dicey rather than less so. That, no amount of pressure from the press or the opposition (is their really a difference?) is going to persuade America to reverse course. Events on the battlefield may change but our commitment to bringing freedom and self-rule to the Middle East will not.
If you fell asleep listening to the speech, then I suspect that you were not a member of the target audience.
Perhaps you should have caught a movie instead.
Sorry, I’m completely in agreement with Russ- and then some.
I watched the speech on C-span, and the striking thing was that he was addressing a military audience who were really quite sombre, and not celebratory. They wanted substance, not cheerleading. The main applause came when W. gave his unequivocal backing to the troops and to the campaign in Iraq. There was no way it might have been jollier if Bush had been snappier.
I also went and read the script. What’s noticeable are the short, succinct sentences, and the logical framework of the speech. There were few rhetorical flourishes, but some good ones towards the end. On the whole though it was a serious speech for a serious audience who matter- and the fact that Bush’s team didn’t request coverage from the major networks suggests that they knew it would be a speech for those with a real concern rather than a casual interest.
I believe the very large gamble George Bush has made in the Middle East is a bet he has placed on God. It is inconceivable to him that a loving God – one that performs healing miracles – would reject modern American democracy (secular religion) in favour of a johnny-come-lately outfit like Islam.
Check it to you, Almighty. D’you go to B School?
Of course I was raised on stories of Thermopylae and Salamis and much history I’ve learned has impressed me with how often it places Hellenistic freedom of expression against the repression of Islam and the platoons of other autocracies encountered along the way.
Matter of fact, I’m beginning to feel pretty “evangelical” about killing Moors myself, these days. Must be the Charles Martel in the water. I think George Bush may have some of the street preacher in him when we get down to speechifyin’ about just exactly who is going to run this War on Terror.
Look for better rhetoric. Meantime, read Isocrates v. Demosthenes on Philip of Macedon.
RCD, did you catch this during the speech?
Abu boo-boo: President tortures the name of shame
Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Two rehearsals for his prime-time speech were not enough to keep George Bush from mangling the name of the prison outside Baghdad that has brought shame to the US mission in Iraq.
During the half-hour televised address, the President mispronounced Abu Ghraib each of the three times he mentioned it, while announcing plans to tear down the infamous jail.
The prison, the scene of torture under Saddam Hussein and the US military, has a name that English speakers usually pronounce as “abu-grabe”.
But Mr Bush, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, stumbled on the first try, calling it “abugah-rayp”. The second version came out “abu-garon”, and the third attempt sounded like “abu-garah”….
So. The Aussies are in on the act as well: “The prison, the scene of torture under Saddam Hussein and the US military, has a name that …”.
So being led around naked on a leash is “torture” along the lines of having your eyelids cut off or your tongue cut out? (Or both?)
In this particular war, in which all the meaningful battles are being fought between the ears of Iraqis, Americans, and a handful of other nationalities, having such an ineffective communications team on our side is probably worth at least an armored division to the Islamonutters.
Have you ever listened to Mr. Kerry speak?
Regardless of who wins in November this particular problem won’t be fixed any time soon.
Hadn’t thought about how the venue might play overseas. To the two prmary audiences (Iraqis and Americans), though, I think the war college is a very good venue. Euro attitudes, frankly, are a secondary or tertiary concern.
For a routine sitrep, the prose is probably fine. The problem is, it is not the President’s job to deliver routine and prosaic speeches. He has buildings full of people who can and should do that. The President’s job is to justify and reinforce the mission and the sacrifices. This speech did not do that, although he has done it in the past with plain speaking. Good rhetoric does not have to be fancy, but it cannot be dull.
Soldiers need inspiration and moral succor, too.
I’m mixed: The speech wasn’t rousing, and didn’t give much inspiration for a mission that’s going to be huge and taxing.
On the other hand, it’s better than no speech, which is what we’ve been getting. If W clues in to the importance of the war “between the ears”, he’ll give more speeches, hopefully of the clarifying, committed and hopeful kind.
Sam
I thought it was pretty decent. He seemed FIRM to me and right now, with the media and certain members of Congress acting like fools. that’s what I wanted. I have thought that White House Communications in general haven’t been as good since Ari left.
I have been annoyed by people like Susan Sontag, who toss out the term “endless” war casually, probably trying to bring out fears of some Orwellian nightmare.
This speech, and the entire debate about the war on terror, is about the end game.
Yes, Iraq is important, and we are working hard, but why?
The war on terror has two possible ends:
– The annihilation of fanatic ideas in the Muslim world
– The annihilation of the Muslim world
We are choosing the former in Iraq, which is why it is so important. Is there any other choice? How else do we win? How do you liberalize a world with people like Saddam in power? How do you neutralize Saddam when terrorists ignore national borders? Why aren’t we being praised for avoiding force at every possible turn?
Reread or listen to the conclusion of the speech, which I thought was excellent (starting with “for the past 32 months…). Overall the speech didn’t move me, but he rarely does.
I think the problem is that the situation on the ground is on the brink. That is the impression many people get from the media. Either we have failure to communicate, which does not bode well for the broader war, or things really are bad. It is hard to be inspired when there is so much on the line.
The trouble is that the media, while always bending over backwards to say that only a tiny minority of Muslims are fanatics, has no compunction about portraying all Americans as thugs, indeed, it seems to delight our media elite no end.
Comments about American culture are made which, were they said about Islamic culture, would be branded racist.
Note how Guardianistas and others see moral equivalence between Lynndie England and Jessica Lynch, based entirely on the fact that they are both American. Lynch has become an icon, one whom the Anti-American left is eager to tarnish and defame, and what better way than to link her to “American thuggery?”
I am all for “Keep it Simple, Stupid”. However, the current Administration seems to mistake it for “Keep it Stupid, Stupid”. It was pretty lame. I had hopes, given that his last speech was better, both in substance and delivery, than his admittedly low average. (Unfortunately, that only partly offset the awful and painful Q&A).
The speech was boring, generally self-contradictory – “end of occupation soon but troops to stay indefinitely” – with PR gimmicks like the destruction of Abu Ghraib (why exactly that wasn’t done a year ago instead of rebuilding the damn place is what I’d like to know) and the usual uninspiring b.s.
The only good thing about it is that it wasn’t delivered by Kerry. In which case it would have said as little, been 10 times more verbose and lasted two hours.
John Edwards and John McCain would be my choices if I were to pick the Republican and Democrat candidates.
They are eloquent speakers and can actually convey vision, something which neither Bush nor Kerry seem capable of doing.
My speech would be thus:
“We will do all we can to ensure Iraq has a stable government and democracy, then we will leave.
Thereafter, America will focus on it’s own defence. We will not be a part of “humanitarian missions”, which we now regard as the responsibility of the EU.
America will no longer do the jobs that other nations are too lazy and decadent to do.
America will focus on itself, and will expect other nations and organisations to likewise mind their own business.”
There are a couple of “memes” bubbling over here. A number of Democrats are growing really restless with Kerry because he seems to have dropped out of sight, relatively speaking. Certainly his responses to Bush on the Iraq subject are rather muted and retrospective. Some are worried that he’s losing the opportunity to rebut Bush’s vague proclamations with Clintonian wonkery.
Problem is, every time Kerry gets himself under the spotlight, his numbers fall. It seems that people just don’t care for the guy. So one of the explanations for his low profile is that his handlers are deliberately minimizing his exposure with the idea that the fewer people who see him, the more they will like him. Or at least not dislike him.
On the other hand, as to Bush’s speech the other night and his upcoming schedule, some suggest that he and his handlers have given up on the mass media (aside from Fox, which they definitely favor) and are trying to circumvent the angry and fatuous Beltway-bound press and television – or perhaps even use it as a wedge.
Who knows if this is even the plan, and if so, that it will work? I do think they realize that there’s no possible way, at this juncture, that they will get any favorable coverage, even when warranted, from CNN/Network news/WaPo/NYT. Instead, they are going to preach to the converted and hope to energize the right-wing base into showing up at the polls.
Contrary to conventional world wisdom, the US is not monolithically behind the President. Hell, even his own party isn’t fully supportive. I think the election is going to come down to which candidate can get the most of his own to rouse themselves from their lives and hit the ballot box.
So my guess is that Bush will gradually and regularly offer these policy speeches. They will have enough specifics to give people stuff to chew on, but not so much that they will be subject to the incessant hair-splitting and deconstruction so common in “discourse” today. They’ll be held in relatively friendly venues and won’t be designed to rally and inspire as much as to calm and reassure. To the horror of this site, there will be rhetorical concessions to the UN.
They’ll be purposefully fuzzy, which IMO is a rational choice given how chaotic things have been and are quite likely to be both in Iraq and the US between now and November. No need to pin yourself down when half the country and pretty much the entire media is preternaturally hostile to anything you do or say.
This will lead to RC sleeping a lot, of course. Just don’t drive and listen at the same time any more, RC! If the speech doesn’t thrill, it might be because Dubya isn’t speaking to you.
On the bright side, at least listening to W speech doesn’t make me nauseous, an improvement over the last occupant of the White House.
Contrary to conventional world wisdom, the US is not monolithically behind the President.
Insightful analysis, except for this bit. Listen in on BBC’s Radio 4 News, if your spleen can take it. World wisdom is, Americans despise Bush as much as the rest of the right-thinking world does, the 2000 elections were just a fluke (or out-and-out stolen), and it’s all over except for carrying George out on a stretcher come November. I mean, it’s what all their American friends at the dinnerparties are telling them.
Kerry is one of the most unappealing guys to run for the White House in a long time (in superficial ways, and in valid, important ways). I’m near Boston, so I’ve had a bigger dose of him than many. The more exposure he gets, the more his numbers will go down. By November, no matter how bruised Bush is, I believe most Americans will find pulling the lever for Kerry unthinkable.
Then the world will go back to thinking we’re just too stupid to govern ourselves.
Bush won by one electorial vote because of a state decided by a few hundred, and lost the popular vote. His approval ratings spike after big news, then trend back down to the 40s, and the spikes are getting smaller each time. How does that translate into love for Our Dear Leader?
How does that translate into love for Our Dear Leader?
Errr…it doesn’t.
Well.
Was there a point to the question?
Scott, this is a canard that ought to die an ignominious death. We don’t know if Gore won the popular vote, given that Gore’s margin of victory is inferior to the number of uncounted absentee ballots.
This is actually a serious weakness of the US electoral system : someone can win the popular vote with, say, 500,000 votes, but with a million or more uncounted ballots. This is because in many jurisdictions, absentee ballots are not counted if there are fewer of them than the difference in the vote between the candidates; after all, if candidate A is ahead by 100,000 votes, counting those 20,000 mail-in ballots won’t change anything to the result. While this is efficient and makes sense at the local/state level, it can lead to somewhat absurd and undemocratic national consequences where someone can win the “popular vote” even though the nationwide total number of uncounted ballots is larger than his margin of victory.
All votes should be counted. There should not be a national gap between the number of votes cast legally and on time and those that are counted.
Claims that Gore won the popular vote, although legally accurate – these are the rules, after all – are actually misleading.
I thought the speech was good (four out of five stars).
The American media is focusing on all the negative aspects of the war, partly out of business sense and partly partisan. This speech allowed the President to speak directly to the American people without the media filter.
It had some good line. It stated hat we will not cut-and-run. And it gave a timeline that this would not drag on forever.
Sorry you were not excited by A George W. Bush speech on the radio, but if you expected anything else, I think your expectations were set a little too high.
wELL SAID Zevilyn
John McCain and John Edwards? Sorry, Zevilyn, I cannot agree. Two good speakers, yes, but I’d hate to choose which one would only raise taxes “a lot” and which would raise taxes “a whole lot.” President Bush is not beloved by the Samizdata readership but he should get some credit for cutting taxes.
For the record, I regard McCain as an unstable authoritarian asshole. No libertarian should have any truck with the cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill. McCain has a long history of instinctively reaching for the jackboot. Feh.
Edwards? A lightweight parasite.
he should only get credit for reducing taxes if he reduced spending, or maintained it. Otherwise he has guaranteed future tax hikes to pay back the deficit. He has , however, massively increased day to day spending. While that may have benefited you ( but unless you are very rich, by not much) – it is not good for the economy.
The reason that Bush has dropped in the polls is that many Americans think that Bush is not conservative enough. They are dissatisfied with Bush because:
1. He has increased spending instead of reducing it.
2. He has not decreased the size of government.
3. He is not aggressive enough in the war in Iraq or in going after Syria and Iran for their support of terrorists.
If the conservatives fully supported Bush his approval rating would be close to 60%.
But conservatives are not going to vote for Kerry, they are going to vote for Bush.
Bush will win the election in a landslide.
jk – Speak for yourself. I like George Bush very much. He’s strong, and he chooses to surround himself with strong, clever people. I like that in a leader.
Strong ? Strong leaders are not afraid to admit when they’re wrong. And they’re not afraid to tell steel workers or farmers to go take a hike.
A willingness to use military power has little to do with strength. As for the tax cuts, they are more than offset by increased government spending and legal monstrosities like the Patriot Act.
Four years on, I am unimpressed with Bush.
“… but our commitment to bringing freedom and self-rule to the Middle East will not [change]. ”
Hollow rethoric.
I fully applaud and support that commitment, but somehow, I don’t believe it will really not change. Bush has already backtracked by handing over responsibility for the Iraqi gvmnt to the UN, and by sticking to the dumb June 30 deadline. The impression is – rethoric notwithstanding, he is seeking a way to cut and run.
A good half of US electorate is for running. That number is going to increase, and that is what is going to happen sooner or later. I have no doubt that the patience of the American public will run out long, long, long before any substantial reform will take hold in the ME.
I wish President Bush would spend less but that is secondary to the tax cuts (yes, I drank the supply-sider KoolAid(r).) Tax cuts will stimulate the economy and reduced revenues will inflict spending restraint on future pork–er legislators.
Verity, sorry if I misread your comment. I know several Republicans who, like Andrwe Sullivan, wish for McCain over Bush. I respect his service but not his policy.