“In a new century when we meet and master new forms of aggression and hatred, ignorance and evil, our vigilance in the face of oppression and global terror will be unequalled by any moment in human history. And to the enemies of freedom, the enemies of democracy, the enemies of America, the enemies of humanity itself, we say here tonight with one voice: There is no corner of this earth so remote, no cave so dark, that you will not be found, and brought to light, and ended.”
These words from the President frustrate me. First of all, he lumps together the disparate groups throughout the world who resort to terrorism. Doing so ignores the fact that these groups are motivated and managed very differently from each other, and failing to notice nuance makes the U.S. look neither in command of the facts nor particularly bright. Second, the President’s rhetoric emphasizes violent intervention over and above dialogue and cultural understanding. In fact, it seems very likely that military action alone, without better cultural engagement, will lead to more terrorism, not less.
But which President said these words? Not George W. Bush, in fact. No, these words come from the mouth of President Josiah Bartlett, the fictitious Leader of the Free World in the television series The West Wing. The quote comes from Bartlett’s State of the Union address, part of an episode that aired in January 2002.
The curious thing—and herein lies my point—is that Bartlett is a Democrat. And he is depicted as spouting rhetoric that virtually no Democrat today would use—rhetoric, in fact, that sounds much more Republican, and hawkish at that. The West Wing’s creator, Aaron Sorkin, is not the ultimate authority on political issues; with that said, no screen writer working today would put those words in the mouth of a Democrat president. And especially not if the writer were a lefty himself, as Sorkin clearly is. The implication is that Democrats used to be quite a bit friendlier with hawkish language of this sort—and not that long ago, either.
Policy talk is partisan, fickle, and reactionary. Republicans and Democrats are not ideologically opposed along eternally existing fractures; they just divide along the latest controversies. Politicians swing their rhetorical pendulums based on what is popular. It is up to citizens to place their rhetoric in historical and philosophical context.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have found that when putting political rhetooric into historical and philosophical comtext, it is best to make sure that it is put into the historical and philosophical context of Scripture. Only then is the context framed properly. Only then are the conclusions consistent. Otherwise, something always seems to be out of kilter, especially when considering secular politics.
For most of the 20th century, Bartlett's rhetoric would have fit right in with that of [non-fictional] Democratic presidents. For instance: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear and burden, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." (John F. Kennedy)
Post a Comment