|
Unionised
January 30, 2002
I was invited to lunch at the US Consulate today to see a live broadcast of the President's State of the Union address. I love this sort of stuff - I'm a former political staffer myself, and I've worked for both sides of politics, conservative and non. Which means that not only am I a political junkie, but I'm not particularly partisan about it.
Sure, I have my own political precepts which I hold dear. But I've never been able to saddle up to one side or the other - as I've written before, it's the game that fascinates me, and I seem to have no trouble compartmentalising my personal political beliefs from getting the job done. It amuses me somewhat that half my friends thing I am a conservative, while the other half think I am a bleeding heart lefty.
Perhaps that's why I've ended up as a consultant; a kind of gun-for-hire spin doctor/lobbyist whose clients have ranged from the top end of town (or those multinational rat bastards, if you will) to the social justice organisations (or, if you prefer, those whinging welfare mentality types). They've all been good people, and if I've felt their cause is a fair one I've been happy to take their coin.
I love the US almost as much as I love my own country, and I particularly love US politics. I love the way the American people can distinguish between the office of the President and the man himself. I love the sentimentalism and the genuine hand-on-heart patriotism, and sometimes when I'm writing a speech I find myself wishing that the same sort of lines would fly here, in this rebellious anti-authoritarian country.
Which is all by way of background to my thoughts on the State of the Union speech; consider it a professional critique. I intend to offend no-one, and thankfully I can always hide behind my foreignness and plead ignorance if what I have to say gets your pulse racing for one reason or the other. I may as well start from the top in my comments, so those who are offended have the opportunity to read no more.
Okaaaay then ... still here? Let's begin.
Can someone please, please please teach George W. to say "nuclear" properly? That's Nu-cleee-ar. Not Nu-cu-lar. I don't mind if he uses the term "weapons of mass destruction" instead, even if it adds to the length of the speech. I just want to know that the guy who has the power to unleash it also knows how to pronounce it.
And I know the speech had to focus on the war against terrorism. But let's embrace it as a theme with a little less glee. I mean, seriously, this war has got to be a conservative's wet dream. No-one, not even Teddy Kennedy (who is looking more and more like a Mad Magazine caricature these days) can complain that we shouldn't be in this war. It's like motherhood, you gotta support it. And I do.
But I still feel a little uncomfortable with that rustling noise in the background, which is actually the sound of the military establishment rubbing its collective hands together in glee. And I can hear the clink of glasses and the hubbub of toasts in the board rooms of those companies that produce the weapons and the aircraft components and the military hardware. Conversely, I guess Oliver Stone has gotta be pleased; this will give him enough material to trilogise himself right into a nice comfy retirement.
"In four short months, our nation has comforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation, and freed a country from brutal oppression." (Applause)
Ummmm ... yes. I think the rebuilding of New York is brilliant and America should be justifiably proud. But I'm not sure there have actually been thousands of terrorists captured - there's not that many of them down at Guantanamo Bay, that's for sure. Rhetoric and drama is one thing, but let's keep it factual.
And it concerned me a little that the same day the president is lauding the fact that the US has freed a country from brutal oppression, the new leaders of Afghanistan are making public pronouncements about their intent to retain Sharia law - you know; chopping off hands for theft, executing anyone preaching christianity, stoning adulterers to death in front of a bloodthirsty crowd... that sort of thing.
Don't get me wrong; I think the fact that little girls can now go to school and that women can again have some sort of professional life is very definitely A Good Thing. I guess I'd just like to see the whole democracy and equality thing go a little further than it has thus far. (I know, I know. Small steps. Patience has never been my strong suit.)
"At a memorial in New York, a little boy left his football with a note for his lost father: "Dear Daddy, please take this to heaven. I don't want to play football until I can play with you again some day". Applause.
Along with everyone else sitting there in the dark on the 59th floor Consulate here in Sydney, I got a little teary in this section. I just wish the story about the little boy's note didn't feel like it had come from a card file somewhere labelled "11/9 Anecdotes: Tear Inducing".
You know, we get it. Even those of us who live thousands of miles away. It hurts us too. We've cried and ached for you as a people, and as parents and children and brothers and sisters. Those deaths are tragic in the true sense of the word. Please don't use those stories cynically, or to win votes. Please don't use someone else's pain to personalise your speech.
"I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." (Applause.)
Ah yes, the old "rule of three". The Kennedys were renowned for it; did it brilliantly. Or should I say Ted Sorenson wrote it brilliantly.
And is it just me, or did others feel that the tone of the speech was intended to be Kennedy Lite; a folksier version of "Let every nation know ... that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty"?
And nor did we escape the Kennedy/Sorenson trademark - the frequent use of antithesis:
GWB: "...our nation is at war, our economy is in recession,and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers - yet the state of our Union has never been stronger."
JFK: "Let us never negotiate out of fear - but let us never fear to negotiate."
But perhaps I am being unfairly harsh. In speechmaking terms, Kennedy - and, across the pond, Churchill - were giants. Professional speechwriters walk in their footsteps every day and the words and speech cadences which moved the world are hard to erase from our collective psyches. The temptation to reflect those words, particularly in such troubled times, must be well-nigh impossible to resist.
"And I was so proud of our work, I even had nice things to say about my friend, Ted Kennedy. (Laughter and applause.) I know the folks at the Crawford coffee shop couldn't believe I'd say such a thing -- (laughter) -- but our work on this bill shows what is possible if we set aside posturing and focus on results." (Applause.)
You know, I don't really care what the folks at Crawford Coffee Shop think. Nor does the rest of the world, free or unfree. And you know what? I don't want to seem like a Kennedy apologist - I'm actually not a big fan of Ted Kennedy - but this line was, to me, downright tacky. You want to talk about non-partisan success? Great. Let's be non-partisan about it then.
"We must ... launch a major recruiting drive with a great goal for America: a quality teacher in every classroom."
Well, I'm glad we've moved on from "a chicken in every pot", anyway. But once again, the rhythm is too well known for this to seem anything other than ...well, borrowed.
"A good job should lead to security in retirement ... Employees who have worked hard and saved all their lives should not have to risk losing everything if their company fails." (Applause.)
Yup. Especially if you're Ken Lay.
Incidentally, I had to laugh when I read a newspaper report today about an Enron employee video, made prior to the collapse. A somewhat uncomfortable Mr Lay was reading aloud from an employee letter, which stated: "Are you on crack? if so, that explains a lot. if not, you should be, because it's going to be a long time before we trust you again". To which Mr Lay responded: "Obviously an unhappy employee..."
But I digress.
"The American people have responded magnificently, with courage and compassion, strength and resolve. As I have met the heroes, hugged the families, and looked into the tired faces of rescuers, I have stood in awe of the American people."
As have we all, Mr President. Well said.
(Well you didn't think I was going to be persnickety about everything in the speech, did you? I'm a professional, not a heartless bitch.)
"I hope you will join me in expressing thanks to one American for the strength and calm and comfort she brings to our nation in crisis, our First Lady, Laura Bush."
Okay, this one troubles me. I think First Ladies have a rotten job, and very little choice in the matter. And I've seen Mrs Bush interviewed a number of times; she seems like a very nice woman.
But she is not the Madonna. (Nor is she Madonna, although that's another story). I'm not a Catholic, so my discomfort at this line does not stem from any particular religious belief. I just think that no nice, normal, perfectly ordinary woman brings "calm and comfort" to a nation. And while I think it is admirable that he should thank his wife on a personal level, I feel a trifle icky about attributing sainthood to a woman who is simply in the job because she's married to the big kahuna.
"To sustain and extend the best that has emerged in America, I invite you to join the new USA Freedom Corps."
You know, I think I could have just about swallowed this one, if it wasn't for all the other Kennedy Lite stuff I mentioned before. It's not original. And given the fact that one of the Corps jobs will be to keep an eye on "homeland security", it's not even particularly correct.
But my real problem with this is the horrid little insistent link in my brain to the "Freedom Corps" in pre-war Germany. (Actually, on consulting William L Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I see the term was actually Freikorps - who were ostensibly volunteers who entered Munich to overthrow the communists but soon turned their attentions to the Poles and the Balts and refused to accept a democratic regime).
I certainly don't wish to imply any similarities between Nazi Germany and the current US Government. I think the underlying principles of the Freedom Corps - the volunteerism, the commitment to community and the compassion - are admirable, and I wish we had a similar tradition here in Australia. I just wish that the President's policy advisers had come up with a new name.
"Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's roll."
Errrr.... right, Prez. Let's roll.
Postscript for any angry readers: Please forward any and all abusive missives to the forum I have established regarding this entry. Yes Ma'am, I do believe in America the Beautiful. No Sir, I am not a communist. I'm a journalist. Or I was. God Bless you too.
|
