A thought experiment: What if Obama delivered Bush's 2nd inaugural?

Wed, 09/30/2009 - 11:14am

My class at the Kennedy School is examining liberal theories of international politics this week, and the policy issue we'll be discussing is the question of democracy promotion. One of the assigned readings is former President George W. Bush's 2nd Inaugural Address. As you'll probably remember, the address was a soaring anthem to virtues of liberty and America's commitment to promoting it around the world. Some of the its choicer lines included:

The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

"The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations."

It would be easy to pick the speech apart, of course, or to point out that Bush's lofty declarations about "America's belief in human dignity" were at odds  with the torture regime that he oversaw as president. It was also the kind of speech that tends to make even America's friends overseas nervous, as they wonder what new crusades the United States might contemplating.

But that's not the point I want to make today. As I read it over preparing for class, I had an odd thought: what if Barack Obama gave the same speech? How would Americans react, and how would foreign audiences perceive it? I read it again, and imagined Obama's voice and cadences uttering the same lines. And you know what? It read a lot better that way. Try it yourself and see. (If you want to make this hypothetical easier to imagine, throw in the phrase "Make no mistake" once or twice).

I draw three rather obvious conclusions from this exercise. First, when you like a political leader, you'll tend to like what he or she says no matter what the actual words are. Conversely, if you've already decided you don't like someone, there's little they could do to convince you. Second, liberal values are deeply infused into American political culture, which is why either Bush or Obama could use a lot of the same phrases and invoke the same sweeping language and get a lot of heads to nod in assent. Third, as long as the United States is very, very powerful, there will be a strong outward thrust to its foreign policy, even when vital interests aren't at stake and even when meddling abroad could make things worse rather than better. 

PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images



Advertisement

 

"America's vital interests

"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."

Quite the opposite. Our main vital interest is sucking up the world's oil which is mostly not located in the US.

This interest goes against our very fundamental founding beliefs: not fu*king with other countries.

Now our main belief is strategic arrogance: anything that is in the US "vital interest" is fair game. Thus the Iran problem.

Third point question

Does this only apply to military power? Does strong economic power necessarily get used abroad?

Michael Lind at Salon says we have leashed our economic power in order to increase our military power. "The end of the Pax Americana?" Wouldn't it have been nice if we did the reverse?

PS SirMix, Just to be clear, Walt is criticizing the "choicer lines" he quotes.

It's the means that matter

Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, Human Rights, Free Speech... no American politician in their right mind would ever say that America should NOT promote these ideals.

It's HOW Bush chose to do so that pissed people off. It was the hypocrisy of promoting ideals in demagogic speeches, all the while raping helpless prisoners in jails half-way across the world (hell, even in our own hemisphere, that people destested).

I agree!

I agree. And also want to add that the timing of the speech adds to its reception. If Bush gave this speech for his first inauguration it would be a lot less ridiculous than as the second. Giving that speech for the second inaugural only seemed like a weak attempt to defend the policies that were starting to unravel in a major way. It was basically impossible to hear Bush talk that way given a war of choice on a helpless nation and not feel nauseated at the hypocrisy.

America's power will be its

America's power will be its downfall. As the Defense Science Board said The US's "overwhelming military superiority is not sufficient to attain national goals."

That said, I'd rather go down with an eloquent intelligent mulatto rather than a snickering 14-year old Frat Boy.

mulatto vs frat-boy

I guess I agree with you on that.

Two points 1) It also helps

Two points

1) It also helps when the media is always on board with you. Imagine if Bush was on four channels at once, or visiting five talk-show hosts, and all the pundits and talking-heads had things running up their legs?

2) It helps when any possible criticism of the person is viewed as racism. That way you never question the media-inspired politically correct impression.

Basically, you're saying it's better to be led by the nose by someone good looking. I'd venture some of us know the deep secret MSM doesn't want out - Bush actually knew more about the world than this Chicago sock-puppet.

But a puppet may be the thing we need right now - since we are socially beyond the point where truth can possibly mater to anyone.

What political leaders say is

What political leaders say is usually not the point. Delivering good speeches, or bumbling, stumbling verbal rambles may entertain the chattering classes; but what political leaders do...the decisions they make, the advice they listen to, the people they pick to carry out their policies...those are the things that matter.
If you're studying rhetoric, fine, this is a nice experiment in the psychology of persuasive speech. If you're studying political science, this is an essay on form over substance.
I'll take substance every time.

In re. to Walt's question

No, not really. Regardless of whether it was Bush or Obama that gave the above speech it still would have been crap to me. I don't trust leaders who use phrases like "ending tyranny in our world", they are either idealists who shouldn't be allowed to direct traffic, much less foreign policy; or they are hypocrites that will go back on those statements at the first chance and remind the country that it has another Liar-in-Chief.
One reason I've supported Obama so far is that his speeches seem to have shown much more realism than that.

I thought of this speech when I read...

... Leon Weiseltier's comment (latest TNR) about Obama being the kind of president who gets everyone all stirred up with flights of lofty rhetoric, but then collapses into expediency. Isn't that US politics? Isn't this speech exhibit A?