Thought Theater

Newsweek: "Patriotism Or Politics?" genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

Amidst the arguments about whether the President's speech was partisan and political or simply an address to the nation to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9/11, one cannot doubt that it was intended to advance the GOP position on the war in Iraq and the war on terror. In my opinion, there is little to be gained in debating the partisanship of the speech, a point previously made here at Thought Theater. Newsweek provides a lengthy analysis of the speech that is worth examining.

Sure, President Bush avoided the words Democrat and Republican. And there were no exhortations for legislation. But if that’s the definition of political, then there’s little that qualifies outside a 30-second TV ad and a State of the Union speech. Instead, the 9-11 anniversary speech carried all the hallmarks of politics as honed and polished by President Bush in the 12 years he has held public office.

The most important hallmark is a passive-aggressive strategy—to land a punch without looking like you’re in a fight. So Bush took the high road of patriotism, as he called for Democrats to stop opposing his policies in Iraq and elsewhere. “Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country," Bush said, “and we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us."

Nothing in his speech, and nothing outside it, suggests that President Bush is ready to meet his critics half-way in setting aside their differences. In the president’s view, the people playing politics—and dividing the nation—are those who oppose his approach. That may not be explicitly partisan politics, but it is political debate dressed up in patriotic clothes.

All well and good, but the overriding problem with this President is beyond politics...he believes the ideology he espouses and that makes his failed policies all the more difficult to address or to alter. It also makes the political calculations for the Democrats all the more complicated. As we see with those involved with al-Qaeda, ideology is virtually impossible to overcome and also a powerful message when delivered by those who sincerely believe their rhetoric is more than politics.

Bush’s rhetorical strategy is twofold: first, issue a statement of fact about your own position; second, caricature your opponents to look foolish. First the statement of fact: “We’re training Iraqi troops so they can defend their nation. We’re helping Iraq’s unity government grow in strength and serve its people. We will not leave until this work is done," he explained.

Second, the caricature: “Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone," he said. “They will not leave us alone. They will follow us."

This is the kind of politics that Bush has used in every cycle, and he shows every sign of repeating the strategy in 2006. He questions his opponents’ weakness, and asserts his own strength; he accuses his opponents of playing politics, while asserting his own honesty and sincerity.

In Washington, such tactics have long been credited to Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff and master political strategist. In fact, Bush is using some of the oldest rhetorical tactics from classical times—and that’s not by chance.

The sad lesson of the last five years of politics is that even the most benign ideas, like acting with resolve, have taken on political—and partisan—meaning. No matter how somber the events on Monday, this campaign season will be just as political as the last.

From the Democrats perspective, is it really pertinent whether or not Bush's actions are partisanship or possibly the sincere beliefs held by a man who likes to characterize himself as non-political? In the end, politics is nothing more than the means by which we attempt to elevate, illuminate and impose the views we hold upon a majority of the citizenry. Efforts by Democrats to convince voters that the President is more political and more partisan than themselves is akin to conceding that one's own politics is insufficient to win over a majority of the voting public.

Democrats’ had best move past the rhetoric that seeks to identify the President's partisanship and onto the rhetoric of elucidating their own politics. If they continue to only ask voters to reject the partisanship of the President, and therefore his politics, the voters may well accept the oft heard assertions that Democrats are attempting to discern the will of the voters in order to define the ideology that the Democratic Party embraces. That strategy can often fail to defeat a sincerely held ideology...even if the opponents ideology is wholly suspect. Democrats would be better served to stand for anything rather than to simply stand in opposition ...and that needs to happen sooner than later.