Bush’s new metaphor of political capital…
“Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely or not at all.” –President George W. Bush, 2005 State of the Union Address
This statement is the 2005 State of the Union Address. I do not mean “is” in the sense of wrapping up all that was said thematically. Instead, this is the SOTU in its rhetorical (and political) essence.
You may recall that, shortly after the recent election, Bush said he had earned political capital and intended to spend it. Political capital is a combination of political power and influence understood in terms of money–something earned. One may save it, invest it, spend it, gamble it, even fritter it away.
The concept of earning political capital is interesting because the source of funds can be multiple and complex. In Bush’s case, he has a majority of voters, he has a majority of the land mass (meaningless in procedural terms but of great pathetic value in rhetorical terms), and he has a party in control of three branches of government.
We may understand the SOTU in terms of the laundry list metaphor–an item-by-item list. I find it interesting this isn’t called a grocery list, especially considering the political capital metaphor and all the money entailments. Most SOTUs are structured as lists of programs to be implemented and goals to be achieved. It isn’t until we encounter the last two during the second term that the speech becomes elegiac in form (what we accomplished) and tone (what it means).
Bush understands himself to be in possession of political capital, and he delivered to congress a grocery list of items he intends to purchase with his money. This is the standard metaphor.
Here is where the whole thing turned odd for me. As I watched the address, another metaphor came to mind that is associated with a different kind of politics: the bludgeon, i.e. political capital as a weapon.
“Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely or not at all.”
Bam! This was a blow to the head. In rhetorical terms it is an example of antithesis–the juxtaposition of contrasting words, phrases, or ideas. It is a common scheme of political address. Its rhetorical power may be found in two characteristics: 1) The sound or word play involved (think Jesse Jackson here, he’s the king of antithesis) and 2) the fact that any good antithesis makes plain which one of the ideas the speaker intends you to accept. The concept of “acceptance” is important here because we’re (supposed to be) talking about rhetoric and argument.
This antithesis lacks the grace and style suggested by the first characteristic. Further, the choice we are given isn’t a choice at all. This isn’t even a zero-sum game he’s offering us. We’ve left reasonableness behind. Not to spend isn’t even in the realm of possibility.
That leaves us now to consider just one word of the ten–the only word open to reasonable interpretation and argument: the adverb “wisely.” What is a wise use of taxpayer dollars? Well, this is a question that ought to ignite lively debate. But debate isn’t what Bush seeks. He has in mind one answer about how we spend taxpayer dollars–anything else is relegated to the absurd category of “not at all.”
Bush didn’t “spend” his political capital during the SOTU because he’s operating with a different metaphor. Capital is a weapon. The grocery list isn’t a list of things to buy; it’s a list of combat objectives. He’s not spending his capital because he’s wielding it. The question then becomes, will he drop it, will someone enter the fray with a more powerful weapon, will he continue to deliver such blows and emerge victorious?
Do not suppose that I am chastising Bush for delivering a plainly partisan speech. I am not. I am a rhetoric scholar, and I recognize that his choice of stance may be one of the best political moves he has ever made. He gave a typically good performance, punctuated especially by his utter dismissal of dissent (silent and otherwise) from assembled Democrats and moderates of his own party. He walked into the House chamber in charge, delivered his speech in charge, and left in charge. He changed the metaphor.
(Additional tags: politics)
“… and he has a party in control of three branches of government.”
It’s not accurate to say Republicans control the judicial branch.
Did I miss the news that Bush stacked the Supreme Court as FDR did (much less made a single Supreme Court appointment)?
Rhetorical hyperbole, ac.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we have a 5-4 split in favor of conservatives on the SC. But, that should not necessarily indicate party control (Democrats can be conservative). So I have mis-stated the case in terms of party. It would, then, be more correct to say that his party is in control of two branches of government. He “enjoys” a conservative tip in the SC.
“… but I think we have a 5-4 split in favor of conservatives on the SC.”
There are NO swing votes on the SC?
Jan Crawford Greenburg of The Chicago Tribune
Fascinating. Of all the things one could question in that post, that you are interested in my interpretation of the political makeup of the court seems curious.
Are we discussing a matter of fact, i.e. the political makeup of the court can be established by a measure? Or do you simply not like my interpretation? Or something else?
It’s where I chose to start, with a misstatement.
It IS a misstatement of fact. It MAY represent either a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court OR an attempt to politicize rhetorically the judicial branch.
If I have a problem with your interpretation, it is only that it is wrong. It’s true that sometimes I have problems with someone’s interpretation because it demonstrates I’m wrong. I hate that, but I try to accept it and adjust accordingly.
In this case, I’m not wrong.
Actually, I just came up with another interesting aspect of this disagreement.
How would you compare the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court and its impact on their decisions/interpretation of law AND the ideological make-up of newsrooms and its impact on their decision/interpreatations in reporting?
Re: wrong (I assume you mean in some absolute sense)
For this to be the case, you would have to quantify the ideology by some measure. How do you propose to do that?
Re: ideology makeup of newsrooms
I’m on the record about this. Re-read my media/political bias page. You will see that I clearly infer that many of these structural biases spring from classically Liberal ideas. (I ought to edit that inference into a statement.)
S- One other thing that you may find interesting here (or maybe not): I haven’t said, nor do I necessarily think, that you are wrong, i.e. I am right you are wrong in some absolute way.
Now how could that be?
We’ve reached an important fork here.
“For this to be the case, you would have to quantify the ideology by some measure. How do you propose to do that? … I haven’t said, nor do I necessarily think, that you are wrong, i.e. I am right you are wrong in some absolute way. Now how could that be?”
This sets up the classic, “Who’s the authority (here)?” Who gets to decide the metrics? I brought in Jan Crawford’s opinion. Does that prove I’m right and you’re wrong? It does in my transactional universe (where I reign King, might I add)
“You will see that I clearly infer that many of these structural biases spring from classically Liberal ideas. (I ought to edit that inference into a statement.)”
I’ve been trying to clarify this in my mind for a while. The distinction that the political or ideological bias debate is “dumb”, but underpins the structural biases.
One more: bad kairos. “… controls three branches” was superfluous to your argument, IMHO. Ergo, my statement above about rhetorical hyperbole. He is wielding his political capital over the legislative branch - both parties. But I influence you without first “attacking” the party partisan view.
“… structural biases spring from classically Liberal ideas.”
Could it be a mix of classically liberal and “social responsiblity” ideas?
re: bad kairos
Hmmmm…that makes sense to me. You should have said this first
I don’t see it this way, but I do understand more now about why this bugged you. And I completely understand now why it appears “rhetorical.” It was 
That’s not to say I was pulling a fast one here. I was freely interpreting.
Re: who’s the authority?
Good question. I wish I knew. I’m not being flip. I mean, I could argue for me, seeing as how I have those three little letters and all. But you and I both know that’s nonsense. I ask the metrics question merely to point out that my perception and experience of the SC is a certain thing–and yours is another thing, and we’re not going to agree that it is ____ until we agree on a measure.
Re: structural biases
Notice I said classically Liberal, i.e. an Enlightenment ideology (and epistemology).
re: mix
Interesting. Depends on how much difference there is between CL and SR.
“You should have said this first :-)”
That would have ended the debate. My target remains who is at the receiving end of the wielding.
Knocking the SC off the list was the first step. Broadening it to both parties was the second. This is a wartime Executive in his final term.
“Depends on how much difference there is between CL and SR.”
At a mininum, we would need to agree on a taxonomy. Doris Graber and the Four Theories of the Press might be a place to start.
Re: knock off the SC
Well, yes. I would have conceded that instantly. I do not mean to suggest in this post that the SC is a target of the wielding. Instead, I simply made that statement to reinforce the idea that Bush is in command of great political power right now, which includes a favorable SC.
Re: Graber
I’ll get back to you on that.
Re: both parties
I’m cool with that, too. Never meant to suggest otherwise.
Instead of taking the long way around the barn, why not just get at whatever it is you want to say?
“… why not just get at whatever it is you want to say? :-)”
pathos.
Re: pathos
You bet!