My poor head.....(REALLY long, sorry)

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what exactly we're supposed to post blogs on, so I'm just going to blog to my little heart's content.

Today's subject, reflecting on Pres. Bush and his rhetoric:

If I may preface this by saying that I am not a rabid Bush hater. The only reason I am not is that I have the unfortunate affliction of believing that there exists the possibility that he actually believes in what he says.

People laud him for being a simple man with straight-forward values. If anything, his inaugural address is evidence of that. What I want to suggest is that perhaps simplicity can be deadly when one's actions affect, oh, say, about six billion people.

Bush is not the anti-Christ. Bush is not Hitler. However, there's two sides to every story, and, for example, if you're from East Timor, El Salvador, Guatamala, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. then maybe those comparisons seem a little more palpable. Even Germany, I can tell you that a lot of Germans think it's eerie/scary that we sing our national anthem before sporting events and even during prayer services held in a National Cathedral (i.e. the prayer service the morning after Bush's inauguration). I don't mean to imply that religion should never be present in politics rather that are numerous instances where intense nationalism/patriotism has been the catalyst for some of the most appalling deeds in history (see World War II) and that it also implies some sort of intrinsic difference among people which I don’t believe exists.

I've already said too much, and this is just the preface.

I'm just going to use specific examples from the Address to illustrate my point:

- "For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder, violence will gather and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat."

Here is the first of what I believe is Bush’s attempt to establish pathos. He doesn’t use emotional stories as examples, like we’ve seen before (as I’ll illustrate in all three of the types of arguments). Instead he uses generalizations that have no definition. One man’s tyranny is, clearly, another man’s democracy.

The idea behind a statement like this is that every man wants to be safe from tyranny, hatred, murder, violence. In general, everyone wants to be “safe.” The problem with pathos is that it amounts to nothing if there’s no logos. He never provides even one example of his logic. Sure, he assures us that we will walk beside and aid any country/people wanting freedom from oppression. He never says what he means by the walking of United States. By not defining anything he says, he will always be right.

- "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."

Again, pathos. Everyone knows that in one sense freedom is what dethrones tyrants, but, on the other hand, it’s the freedom of one man that causes him to say, “I’m free to do what I want, and because I have the ability, I’ll control you.”

This is what I feel are Bush’s lies of omission (and he’s definitely not alone in doing this. This is a favorite pastime of politicians, and not to mention none other than Mr. Michael Moore). To use tag words phrases or images disproving your antithesis.

- "From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and earth."

Pathos: He’s making allusions to what our Declaration of Independence says, trying to bind us together. Unfortunately, he’s neglecting that (I believe it’s fairly widely known) we didn’t really act on what we “proclaimed” for the first, say, 200 years of our existence as a country. I guess that means no logos.

- "This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities."

I could agree with this statement more. It shouldn’t be a task of arms, but he hasn’t shown that he believes in what he says. He says freedom should be chosen and “defended by citizens,” well that’s what the insurgents in Iraq truly believe they are doing.

Furthermore, I believe it’s safe to say, he’s acknowledging the fact that it must be the population of a country that institute a democratic form of gov’t. So…what are we doing forcing democracy where there wasn’t a popular movement. Sure, the people may have wanted it, but we can’t do it for them. This has been seen time after time since the fall of the Soviet Union (see Botswana, in relation to nearly EVERY other country in Africa).

- "My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve and have found it firm."

He’s right, this is his duty. On the other hand, I think the key word in this statement is “some,” because many have tested our resolve, and “some” have found it firm. It’s becoming clear that if you are significant enough as a threat, we’ll walk on eggshells when your around.

For example, recent estimates say that China has over 500 ballistic missiles lined along the coast of the Strait of Taiwan. Not only that, it has increased its long range missile capacity so as to be able to strike US military bases in Japan and Guam.

The facts that (1) the US has promised to aid Taiwan in the case that China were to attack it (who has been trying to break from Communist China for the last, I think, 60 years to become a sovereign Democratic nation), (2) China is more openly increasing its strike capabilities towards American interests, and (3) that the US has done little to stop all of this (in fact, quite the opposite: last week the US gov’t sold 400 Hellfire missiles to Taiwan…if that’s any illustration of peace), and (4) the US has not called for “pre-emptive strike” against China show that perhaps Bush isn’t doing what he should where he should OR applying the same rubric to all nations.

OKAY, I’ve got to stop here. I had about five or six more quotes, but I think I’m being repetitive. I’m not even really sure that I’m talking about rhetoric at all.

My whole point is that I don’t believe Bush ever established a firm instance of pathos, ethos, or logos. He used lies of omission and the connotative meanings of words to appeal to people.

I’ll end with a quote I thought was really funny:

- "Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self."

In the words of Robin Williams in reference to Ronald Reagan’s quote “What would this country be without this great land of ours”: “Excuse me, Mr. President, in the dictionary under “redundant” it says “see redundant.”

Sorry this is so long. I always get carried away with this kind of stuff.