« Sneak preview... | Main | Rhetorica update... »

January 21, 2005

Defining eloquence down...

I made a mistake yesterday, and I made it in front of a television camera.

I made this prediction: President Bush's second inaugural address will be one the finest speeches of his presidency and may be remembered among the best inaugural addresses--possibly right up there with the likes of Kennedy's, FDR's first, and Lincoln's second.

I made this prediction for these reasons: Bush has obviously worked hard at delivery. He has proven himself capable of delivering the kind of address that befits presidential leadership in a time of national challenges.

Great inaugural addresses happen when eloquence, unity of purpose, and great political/social moment combine. And this moment had it all.

But what we heard was turkey.

There exists in inaugural address a gaping trap that must be avoided. Inaugural addresses are purely ceremonial--delivered by tradition, not by law. There is nothing frivolous about the ceremony of the inaugural address because the purpose is noble: To reunite the country following a divisive election, to get us all back on the same page. We may still be in different paragraphs, but that's to be expected.

Jimmy Carter fell into the trap. He delivered an inaugural with a little too much policy. If you want to start your presidency as a divider and not a uniter, this is the way to do it.

My one fear was that Bush--flush with his "mandate" and his party's control of, well, everything--would hammer home the policy. I was happy to see that he avoided the trap and stuck with tradition. Now, if he could just have delivered a better speech.

Problem #1: His performance in terms of delivery was flat and dull. Review a tape of address and pay particular attention to the (over-written) applause lines. Bush is so flat that in several crucial moments the audience waits until they're sure he has paused before clapping and cheering. Bush gave them little inflection to work with.

Problem #2: Eloquent? That word has apparently lost a lot of meaning. The Bush speech is certainly full of adjectives, but these do not eloquence make. According to the textual analysis program Diction 5.0, Bush's "embellishment" score is off the charts--22.3 out of the standard deviation. The embellishment score is a measure of the ratio of adjectives to verbs. The writing advice you probably heard in school fits speech writing, too: Use strong nouns and verbs. If you're interested in computer-assisted text analysis, I've posted the results of the Bush second inaugural and the Kennedy inaugural for comparison.

Further, an eloquent speech should be free of silly clinkers such as these:

"The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations."

"We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation:"

Those are mild compared to this failure to hit the proper rhetorical heights:

"America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies."

Who wrote this stuff?

Bullies? Big meanie-pants bullies? Geez...this line began with the potential to be one of the best of the speech--a truly eloquent statement of solidarity with those oppressed for their desire to live free. I can't even imagine a competent speech writer thought "bullies" either 1) accurately and concretely names, well, tyrants, and 2) sounded as if belonged in the same sentence with chained dissidents and humiliated women.

Problem #3: What the heck is "freedom"? It must be important because he 1) uses the term (and the related "liberty") 36 times, and 2) suggests, despite the differences of cultures and religions, that it is something that burns in every human heart. Seems to me that something that important deserves a simple, concrete, powerful definition. But this is the great (to use an over-used Bush adjective) enthymeme of the entire speech. He speaks these words (over and over and over again) and we hear what we want to hear. The problem is the rest of the world hears what it wants to hear, too. What are they thinking about this in Taiwan tonight--or China? Who cares? Well:

"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country."

Go ahead, Taiwan! Declare your independence. We're ready to stand by you (against the largest army in the world).

Problem #4: Over-writing creates gibberish. Today's editorial in the local paper called the speech a cryptic riddle. I found no riddles; riddles are complex word-plays pregnant with meaning. This is merely bloated with gas:

"From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?"

What's beautiful about this is that it could mean so many things. Take your pick, and enjoy yourself.

The antepenultimate paragraph is simply nonsense:

"We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty."

Lemme see if I get this straight: We can be confident freedom will triumph despite history not running on the wheels of inevitability. We make history. Oh, and God, too. We are confident that history is moving inevitably toward freedom because it is an ancient hope meant to be fulfilled (meant by us? God?). History doesn't move with inevitability (except, apparently, when mankind or God want it to), but it has a visible direction with an ebb and flow of justice. Yep, makes perfect (non)sense to me.

The problem here isn't the idea (as best we can tease it out). I think Bush made the right choice of theme. I think he was reaching for the right tone--one befitting his position and this historical moment. But he reached too far. Here's what happens (in the penultimate paragraph):

"When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength - tested, but not weary - we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."

Good start. Powerful anecdote. Then look what happens. Bush tries to end with a bang and clinks instead. Let's leave sermons to the clergy--they write that stuff better anyway. We're now "proclaiming" liberty? Why not simply live it as an example to the world? What happened to the shining city on the hill--now there was an image Americans loved! And, finally, in a magnanimous gesture of inclusiveness, Bush proclaims liberty to the world AND to the people (thereof!). Not just one or the other. Who says the Republicans don't have a big tent?

Next week: What I liked about the speech.

Posted by acline at January 21, 2005 6:46 PM | | Spotlight