The Inaugural Address

I feel compelled to write something on Bush's Inaugural address, yet I confess to being uncertain what I really think about it. Listening to it, I kept thinking: "I understand all of the words, but what is it he is actually saying?" So, rather than trying to react to the speech itself, I thought I would wait until this morning so I could read the transcript and see if it made any more sense then.

Reading didn't help. In fact, if anything, the transcript seems more disjointed and far less eloquent than the speech itself did. And I have come away from the reading as confused as ever. Even -- or perhaps especially -- in print, it is just all so damn vague.

In part, of course, the speech is a craven effort to portray vice as virtue. Nowhere does he mention Iraq. Yet there is little doubt that Iraq is what he is talking about when he says this:

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens: From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

Gone completely is the notion that we invaded Iraq to forestall the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMDs and his support of Al Queda. The real purpose George tells us was to light a fire of freedom that will bring an end to tyranny throughout the world. Excuse me while I throw up.

But there's more to the speech than self-justification. In addition to "explaining" our noble purposes in Iraq, George is also articulating (if that is the word) a vision, a theme, that will undergird his entire second term both domestically and internationally. If it were anyone but George Bush, I wouldn't take this effort too seriously. But one thing we have learned about George is that he believes this kind of rhetoric and that he does what he's says he'll do. So, anyone interested in where the country will be going in the next four years is well advised to at least try to figure out what it is he is saying.

That's hard, though. The theme, obviously, is the "expansion of freedom". I didn't count them, but William Safire, who not surprisingly loved the speech ("I rate it among the top 5 of the 20 second-inaugurals in our history"), says Bush used the words "freedom", "free" and "liberty" 49 times. While I do not question the accuracy of that count, I must say that it feels low. These words appear so frequently that the speech begins to sound like a chant: Freedom! Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!

But what exactly does George mean by freedom? And what steps does he intend to take in pursuit of the goal of expanding it both abroad and at home?

On the international side, I think the speech is really content-free. Perhaps intentionally, it allows the reader to see in it whatever the reader chooses to see and discloses nothing about what the speaker's true intentions are. If there is "meat" here it appears to be this:

So 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.

Supporting democratic movements and opposing tyranny have always been at least the nominal policies of the United States. So, at a literal level at least, the speech promises nothing new. Yet, you can't help but think that George really does have something new in mind. But, beyond some sweeping generalization about standing by the oppressed and standing up to the oppressors -- sentiments that themselves are hardly new -- he doesn't say what that is. The rhetoric is great; the content non-existent. Perhaps that is inevitable, even appropriate, in an Inaugural Address. In this case, though, I suspect there is intention behind the rhetoric. And, given the speaker, my inability to divine that intention makes me nervous.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the speech is that George thinks we need to "expand freedom" domestically as well. Silly me, I thought maybe he was going to advocate repeal of the USA Patriot Act. But no, it's not freedom from government oversight and prying that George wants to expand; it's freedom from reliance on government. Freedom to George means less government help and more reliance on self, family and neighbors:

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence . . . . By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal. In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character, on integrity and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. . . . In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love.

I can't argue too much with the literal meaning of these sentiments. Freedom does require one to take responsibility for himself rather than expecting the government to assume that responsibility. Yet, I can't help thinking that what George is really saying is that, in the name of freedom, we -- or the government at least -- will be getting out of the business of helping even those for whom self-reliance is simply not possible.

Perhaps I am being too hard on George. There is actually much in this speech that could be inspiring if it came from another speaker. But given that it is George, I can't help being concerned that the lofty rhetoric hides an altogether violent and nefarious agenda.