January 20, 2005
The Second Inaugural Address
In honor of the second inauguration of a Republican president, I beg your attention to the greatest such speech ever. President Lincoln, presiding over a nation in its bloodiest hour, had brought forth the new Republican Party and with it a new ideology of freedom.
Despite the Grand Old Party's daliances and failures in the last seven-score years, this underlying ideology is still sounded. President Bush's speechwriters today consciously imitated - and even invoked - this greatest of presidential orators. We should remind ourselves from whence we have come, and at what cost.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you President Abraham Lincoln:
Fellow-Countrymen:Posted by Chops at January 20, 2005 01:27 PMAt this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.'
While I will agree that Lincoln’s speech was one the greatest, speech given by a sitting President, President Kennedy’s inaugural speech was equally as eloquent and purposeful. The speech given by Bush today was pretty, even eloquent in places, but in the end meaningless and dare I say vapid. Its words wrung hallow in the face of the current stat of American affairs.
I no longer believe we can call the worlds to a higher purpose until we as a nation fulfill the destiny of our own beginnings, and hold true to liberty and equality for all Americans not just those who self-righteously claim God as their sovereign and seek to foist their morality on us all. That is not freedom but oppression.
1. Abraham Lincoln is not “given” like some token party favor or charm. He belongs to ALL Americans.
2. The Republican Party of 2005 is an affront to the legacy of this statesman.
3. Wrapping Bush in Lincoln’s shroud does not transform the man; it simply magnifies his shortcomings.
4. All the red white and blue bunting in the world won’t hide the truth.
Party on…
Posted by: Mr. Man at January 20, 2005 04:01 PMGentlemen -
If you’ll notice, I purposely stayed away from comparing Bush’s speech to Lincolns in hopes of avoiding this type of debate. My goal was simply to take the occasion of a moment of traditional pageantry to recall our collective past. Maybe I would have done better simply to post Lincoln’s speech without comment; but I fear for the quality of our discussion when a Republican blogger cannot quote a long-dead Republican president without being harangued as partisan. Can we just agree that Lincoln made a great speech, and proceed, perhaps, “with malice toward none, with charity for all”?
Exasperating, isn’t it, Chops. You can lead folks to an article, but, you can’t force them to drink its meaning and intent.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 20, 2005 04:49 PMChops;
Yes we can agree on that.
I was intending to simply critique the message of the Republican party, but on review, my first point appears to be directed at you. This was not my intention, and I apologize.
Further, I don’t recall accusing anyone of “being partisan.” I was simply responding to the Republican Party’s proclivity to claim Lincoln as idealogical kin, when I don’t believe this to be true. In fact, I think he’d be pretty appalled that someone so divisive as W. was entering a second term.
That being said, I agree with V. Edward Martin’s comments. This speech, like so many other current Republican ham-fisted attempts at relevent symbolism, so self-consciously imitates the words of a true stateman as to render itself meaningless. We are left not thinking of any real plan for our own future (because there isn’t one), but the radiant vision of a man dead for over a century, and nostalgia for a Republican Party that’s truly lost it’s way.
Chops;
Yes we can agree on that.
I was intending to simply critique the message of the Republican party, but on review, my first point appears to be directed at you. This was not my intention, and I apologize.
Further, I don’t recall accusing anyone of “being partisan.” I was simply responding to the Republican Party’s proclivity to claim Lincoln as idealogical kin, when I don’t believe this to be true. In fact, I think he’d be pretty appalled that someone so divisive as W. was entering a second term.
That being said, I agree with V. Edward Martin’s comments. This speech, like so many other current Republican ham-fisted attempts at relevent symbolism, so self-consciously imitates the words of a true stateman as to render itself meaningless. We are left not thinking of any real plan for our own future (because there isn’t one), but the radiant vision of a man dead for over a century, and nostalgia for a Republican Party that’s truly lost its way.
I thought the speech was fairly good. I do expect a lot of complaints about the many references to God and the Almighty.
Even I said … out loud …’Now George’ when he was about half way through his speech. I expected the Almighty to be mentioned, but not that many times.
Was he referring to Iran when he spoke of the U.S. standing behind those that fight for Liberty?
What about the Chinese? Will we be refusing goods from them until they do better by their own? What about their stealing our ideas? copying our products?
What would happen if we refuse their goods? Will more jobs be created in our own country?
Does the U.S. have the backbone to actually slow trade with countries who don’t do right by their people or us?
Bush did not mean we would go to war with the world using our military - there are other ways to show that we mean what we say.
So many questions …
Bush can set an agenda, he can set priorities, he can even threaten to block other’s proposals and agendas, but he can’t do any of this alone - our other politicians have to grow backbones, stand up for what is right, and take the chance they may not get re-elected. If they ran to be politicians for life then they had no business running in the first place.
Dawn-
I do not expect being a Christian, especially a Catholic, to be anything else than thankless nowadays. I can take my stands for my religion, but I will have to live with the fact that I cannot convert everybody to my side.
I appreciate what good leaders can do with a speech. To many presidents, too many representatives recite dead, focus-group honed speeches that call any strong decision leadership. This president has not been a good leader.
He’s droned endlessly about freedom, citing numbers that concern countries we have not completely pacified. I mean, I swear, the man probably gets freedom gas eating freedom beans. A leader doesn’t repeat a word in the ground, he gives new meaning to it. Freedom should be the punchline, not the joke.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 21, 2005 01:24 AMIf you’ll notice, I purposely stayed away from comparing Bush’s speech to Lincolns in hopes of avoiding this type of debate.
Nice try, Chops. But your opening commentary clearly equates the Republican Party’s currently predominant neo-conservative ideology and President Bush’s speech, with Lincoln’s.
It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces
The number of working poor in America has multiplied each year under President Bush’s leadership, and more and more Americans fell below the poverty line each year since 2001.
I find it hard to reconcile the GOP’s stark “ownership society” goals with President Lincoln’s humanism and concern for the social equality of all Americans - not just those able to fend for themselves.
What about the Chinese? Will we be refusing goods from them until they do better by their own?
Dawn, once again, you’ve spoken like a true “fair trade” Democrat. To paraphrase Darth Vader, “We are your Party, Dawn. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.” :)
Does the U.S. have the backbone to actually slow trade with countries who don’t do right by their people or us?
That is exactly what Democrats in Congress want to do. Republicans block every attempt.
It’s interesting that you apparently think President Bush would put those kinds of conditions on trade agreements. He has constantly rejected them.
There was an interesting study done recently revealing that most people who call themselves Republicans don’t have any idea what the Republican Party’s goals and ideals actually are.
Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%).
Fascinating.
Posted by: American Pundit at January 21, 2005 01:53 AMAP
A couple of obvious points about political parties and candidates, why people support them and how they answer questions.
1. When you choose a candidate, you buy a package. Each package contains things you want and some you don’t like. Nobody should expect to support everything their candidate or party stands for. You just get to choose the package deal you like best. There is no al-la-carte menu.
2. You have to look at the package offered TODAY. The parties overlap significantly and over time change mix and match their core attributes. One pundit yesterday described Bush’s speech as Woodrow Wilson’s third inaugural and it is true that the Republican Party has traded places with the Democrats on many international issues. Talking about party identification on any issue more than about 40 years ago is essentially meaningless.
3. The issues you mention are not particularly important to most people. If respondents don’t have a very strong opinion, they tend to be manipulated by the phrasing of the question. The ICC and Kyoto are good examples of things that sound very good in general, but break down when you look at the details. Those unfamiliar with the details will almost reflexively support the concepts when asked. Not many people favor global warming; it is just that Kyoto is the wrong way to address it.
4. Partisans on both sides tend to judge the opposition by deeds or results and judge their own party by intentions. Intentions are almost always better than results. I recall that U.S. trade policy under Clinton was not particularly concerned with human rights in practice either. Clinton never tried to get Kyoto ratified. His administration opposed the treaty on land mines and began to lay the groundwork for a missile defense system. Talking is easy; doing is hard.
5. When a member of one’s own party makes an indefensible blunder, partisans make up reasons why he was not a true member of the party or didn’t follow its true ideology. The true test of an ideology is what kind of results it produces. Communism, for example, sounds decent, but always produces bad results, so we can conclude that there is something wrong with the ideology, not the only with its practitioners.
Jack, You should check out factcheck.org’s feature on what Bush is doing with social security.
The American Academy of Actuaries believe’s Bush’s presentation of the matter to be quite deceptive.
Bush doesn’t tell you that the projections he uses are very pessimistic, and are extended out over seventy-five years. The shortfall, as predicted, is ten trillion, but he doesn’t tell you that today’s taxable payrolls over this “infinite horizon” run at nearly three hundred trillion dollars.
This is Bush’s problem, what makes people like me such fierce critics of him: he hides from us the evidence, the truth that he knows will make a difference in our decisions. And the matters he chooses to keep from us are usually quite crucial to getting things right.
I would not write my essays for this site, if Bush’s deceptions hadn’t gotten me angry enough to do so. To me, failure is dangerous, but failure accompanied by a disregard for founding policy on good facts and theories is worse. In the first case one is simply wrong, in the second, one is not even wrong. America does not deserve to be decieved time and time again so that the unscrupulous can set their agenda in motion. This is the danger democrats sense to our Democracy: not Conservatism, but policy made in the absence of public consent and concern. Bush does not trust America to sway his judgment. He wants the power in his hands, not ours, where it belongs. We didn’t elect him to watch him follow his own interests, but to serve ours.
Do you wish to be decieved into following your leader, or dealt with honestly, as one equal would treat with another?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 21, 2005 09:11 PMWhen a member of one’s own party makes an indefensible blunder, partisans make up reasons why he was not a true member of the party or didn’t follow its true ideology.
You’re right about that, Jack. I see it all the time over here. Your posts are usually a pretty good example. :)
Like AP, I was also not blind to your disingenuous slight of hand either, Chops! You damn well know, that if we were talking a John Kerry Inaugural speech, it would’ve been heralded and dissected for it’s clarity and bluntness in multiple posts in the WB Blue column. However, here we have the most specious address by a President in the modern age, riddled with cliches (‘Freedom’ 27 times, ‘Liberty’ 15 times), and not one of you in the Red Column will acknowledge it directly.
Of course, this is not surprising if Bush’s speech actually ‘freaked out’ Reagan’s speech writer, Peggy Noonan!
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at January 22, 2005 01:24 AMJack,
You actually gave reasons why a party members stands might not jibe with the party’s on some issues. What American Pundit referred to was a party members beliefs about what the party or its leaders stand for. Very different, the difference between honest and deceptive advertising. All policians hide some of their positions to some degree, but the Republican party has raised this to an art form, wherein most of its core values have been diguised to the majority of their own party. It begs the question of why it is necessary to do so?
Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 22, 2005 05:21 PMBert -
I’m sorry that you think “liberty” and “freedom” are cliches. Perhaps I’m naive, but I sincerely believe that both Bush and Kerry (and virtually every other president with the possible exceptions of Tyler and Nixon) love this country and actually love freedom and liberty. While most of the political commenters I know (myself included) are cynical, most of the politicians I know (including Mike Dukakis) are very positive, even gauche, in their view of this country. Maybe I’m deceived, but I certainly hope not.
Posted by: Chops at January 22, 2005 06:28 PMI thought the President’s speech was especially inspiring. I rather liked his mention of religion, and God, and Liberty, and Freedom, etc.. Mr. Lincoln, he ain’t… and thank God for that! Then, you see, I’m a Southerner. I have not yet forgiven Mr. Lincoln.
I am a conservative from “way back” and, I disagree with a number of things the President does. But… he leads. I like that. Mr. Bush is the closest thing to a real conservative President we’re likely to have for a while. I intend to enjoy it!
Posted by: Longstreet at January 22, 2005 06:46 PM
Lincoln did not bring forth a new ideology of freedom. Read the Constitution. That ideology had been in place since founding of this country. The ideology had not been lived up to, and Civil War did little to actually breathe life into the founding father’s ideology of freedom. It is nice though to see Bush’s speech writers continue talking the talk. If only they could get Bush to walk the walk, for Americans, all, that would be something.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 22, 2005 08:01 PMChops,
Thanks for pointing out the lack of clarity, in my comments. I meant to say that words like ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty’, become repetitive, disingenuous cliches when they are spoken by President George W. Bush.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at January 22, 2005 09:50 PMMental Wimp
I think my reasons stand. You are assuming that I am unhappy with what the Republicans are doing. I am not.
George Bush has been delivering mostly what I hoped he would within the parameters of human error. I believe his presidency has been a success. I voted for him because I supported the thrust of his policies. Let me address the points concerned.
I am in favor of international justice, but I don’t think the ICC will give that to us. So I support what George Bush has done.
I believe that global warming is a problem, but Kyoto is too flawed to have much of an effect on it and the costs are too high, so I support George Bush on this.
I believe that environmental and labor considerations should be included in trade agreements, but I think that environmental groups and organized labor are not on the same side as I am. So I support Bush.
I would like to have a treaty on land mines, but I know that it is unenforceable and would be used as an offensive weapon against the U.S. military. So I support Bush.
I believe the test ban treaty has been overtaken by events and has to be rethought. Every arrangement needs to be renewed every once in a while. So I support Bush.
I do understand where the Republican Party is taking the country, but if I were to answer the poll questions, it might sound like I did not.
Polls are interesting in the way they ask questions. Most people don’t really know the issues well enough to answer polls questions on Kyoto or the ICC. Ask ten people if they support Kyoto. Now ask them to name the major provisions of Kyoto. Ask them if China, Brazil and India have obligations under the treaty. Ask them if any countries are actually implementing anything like the provision now. You will get a variety of answers, mostly wrong. Try the same exercise with the ICC. Start out asking what ICC stands for.
So, I fall back on my point #4 when criticizing Bush. I think he has done a good job so far and I hope he will do even better in the next four years.
George Bush has been delivering mostly what I hoped he would within the parameters of human error.
Jack, we all want an end to terrorism, the spread of democracy, and a clean, sustainable environment. It’s the momumental, miscalculations, blunders, and “human errors” you guys are so willing to excuse and rationalize away that make the difference.
Jack
I wan’t referring to your beliefs, but the beliefs of the majorities of pro-Republican voters that were evident in the survey that American Pundit referred to. It is sad when those voting for a party so misunderstand the goals of those they are voting for. I think it comes from a willful misrepresentation by the Republican party over the last couple of decades. As it became more conservative, it spent more energy dressing its wolf-like platform in sheep-like clothes to convince voters to accept them. This deception has led to the situation American Pundit cited: the voters don’t realize who they are voting for. Like I said before, to some extent all politicians do this, but not in such an organized and consistent way as to fool a majority of those voting for them. It’s amazing, a testament to the wiliness of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at January 24, 2005 07:39 PMMental Wimp
I give the American people more credit than you guys do. I don’t think Karl Rove has tricked them all. The Democrats and Republicans spent similar amounts during the last election. If you count 527 groups and the drawing power of liberal celebrities, the Democrats had much more. With all that, if the Republicans could still trick the people, how stupid does that make the Democrats?
Surveys can show a variety of things depending on how the questions are asked. People might have an opinion on an issue, but not know all the facts, or they may not have a strong opinion.
With all that, if the Republicans could still trick the people, how stupid does that make the Democrats?
Some people and organizations are just better at it than others, I guess. Or more inclined to it, anyhow.
It’s hard to blame people for being susceptable to fear after 9/11. Rove and the other GOP operatives kept their heads, while all about them Americans were losing theirs. Tip o’ the hat to ‘em. :/
