(Cross-posted from The Blog Roundup).
Now that the partygoers in DC are shaking off their hangovers and the sponsors are putting away their checkbooks and they are all returning home, we can ask the important question: What was the real message in Bush's inaugural speech?
It's become common practice for the Bush administration in general, and Bush in particular, to use rhetoric and half-truths as a way of framing issues to benefit their political agenda. The most obvious example of this was the drumbeat in advance of the Iraq war, in which a constant stream of Republican politicians asserted, directly or indirectly, that Iraq was a serious threat to the US (which they weren't), that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (which he didn't), and that Iraq was intimately linked to Al Qaeda (which it wasn't). This game of insinuation and allusion was so effective that even today a significant minority of Americans still believe those statements to be true.
(More after the jump...)
The same game is being played today with Social Security, whereby Bush & co. are using words and phrases like "crisis", "bankrupt" and "it's your money" to sell their program to the public, and more importantly, to mask the fact that this is their big chance to dismantle a successful government program which, for ideological, economic and political reasons, they detest.
There was a time, a simpler time in America's past, in which plain-spoken folks all across America (which George Bush likes to present himself as, rather than a wealthy North-Eastern elitist) would call this process of constantly framing and spinning the truth by it's real name: Bullshit. There was a time it would be called propaganda, and would take on the sinister tones of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Some folks (myself included), might simply call it lying.
In his speech, Bush used the words "freedom" or "free" a total of 34 times, and the word "liberty" 15 times. For example:
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
Despite this noble rhetoric, and the latest attempt to rationalize the Iraq fiasco by claiming the moral high ground of spreading democracy, the reality of Bush's world is
somewhat different:
President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world.
Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well.
So freedom and liberty are vital for everyone everywhere; except when they're not. Perhaps when geopolitical ambitions or economic interests take precedence? Or perhaps these statements are just part of the usual verbal sleight-of-hand to distract the American public from the blatant repression of freedom which is occuring under their noses and in their names.
Given the history of the past four years, it's pretty safe to assume that there is indeed a hidden agenda behind Bush's speech; a subtext which wasn't necessarily specifically stated but hinted at in some way. So what was it that Bush didn't say yesterday which we can infer by reading between the lines? Although it was long on lofty idealism and almost devoid of any actual specific policies, the speech did give us a couple of clues. Ironically enough, it has been French newspapers which have been most adept at pointing them out:
Bush painted a vision of "an America that propagates freedom, democracy and prosperity around the world," an article on the Web site of the French newspaper Liberation said. "The problem is that with this speech, one has the impression of having heard it a thousand times, and no longer believing it."
It added: "Not all the world strongly wants this 'freedom a l'americaine.' It's only necessary to look at Iraq."
The other clue in the speech was the many explicit references to God and religion:
The French daily newspaper Le Monde, in its Web site edition, noted that Bush "made several references to God." European leaders normally do not mention religion in their public statements.
So despite the general impression among commentators and pundits that Bush's speech would herald a move towards conciliation, bipartisanship and multilateralism, there is another possible interpretation: That the speech was used as political cover; cover for a radical agenda of four more years (and if Karl Rove gets his way, much more) of the political right using the same leverage issues to maintain power, such as religion, jingoistic patriotism, economic exploitation and cronyism; and war, oppression and torture in the name of "freedom".
Now isn't that something to celebrate?
- Trendar