Some informed analysis on the Oct. 6 speech by Michael Barone, John Hinderaker and Cori Dauber.
It was an excellent speech, well received by the audience. I won’t attempt a complete analysis, but I think it did three things Bush has not done before.
First, he identified the source of the terrorism we are fighting against. “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant jihadism; still others, Islamofascism.” (Score one for Christopher Hitchens, who I believe invented the term Islamofascism.) Of course Bush went on to say, quite rightly, “Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.” To the best of my memory, Bush previously has not been willing to describe what we are fighting against as “Islamic” radicalism, presumably out of fear of angering Muslims or of providing fodder for claiming that we are fighting a war against Islam.
…
Second, Bush provided a narrative framework for what is going on in Iraq. It is not, as the mainstream media tend to portray it, a story of endless and continuous violence against which we have no defense and are prosecuting no offense. On the contrary,Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. Area by area, city by city, we’re conducting offensive operations to clear out enemy forces, and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy from returning. Within these areas, we’re working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. And we’re aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence. This work involves great risk for Iraqis and for Americans and coalition forces. Wars are not won without sacrifice–and this war will require more sacrifice, more time, and more resolve. . .
Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters–they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people themselves.
In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress–from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of 2½ years. With our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations 11 months ago, there were only a few Iraqi Army battalions in combat. Today there are more than 80 Iraqi Army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces. Progress isn’t easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.
The third interesting new thing in this speech was Bush’s description of what could happen if we fail in Iraq:
Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources?
I am struck by the sublime indifference of most critics of Bush’s Iraq policy to the fate of the Iraqi people. They are totally unexultant about the overthrow of a vicious dictatorship and seem to have no interest at all in what would happen to Iraqis if we leave suddenly. Hitchens has argued persuasively that no one deserves the label of liberal who is so indifferent to whether others live in freedom or under tyranny. In this passage Bush reminded Americans more hardheadedly about our own self-interest. But of course many of his critics are more interested in hurting Bush than they are in preventing the emergence of an anti-American tyranny in Iraq.
UPDATE: John Hinderaker’s thoughts on the speech: President Bush Speaks Again on the War on Terror, But Is Anyone Listening?
President Bush gave a major address on the war on terror and Iraq before the National Endowment for Democracy yesterday; you can read the whole thing here. You should read the whole thing, since it’s next to impossible to get an accurate sense of it from news accounts. this one in the New York Times is typical; it buries a few brief quotes from the speech amid commentary on Bush’s falling poll numbers, adverse reaction to the Miers nomination, and the Democrats’ attacks on Bush.
…
I haven’t seen a report on how many people watched Bush’s speech; in fact, I’m only assuming that it was broadcast by someone. My guess is that very few either saw it or will read it in its entirety. Instead, the overwhelming majority depend on what they read about Bush’s speech in the newspapers or hear on television news reports. Those articles and reports, with hardly any exceptions, will be carefully framed to minimize the speech’s impact.
People used to talk about the Presidency as a “bully pulpit,” but I think one lesson of the Bush years is that the President’s ability to communicate effectively with the American people, outside of the context of an election campaign, is limited. The real “bully pulpit” belongs to the mainstream press, which is just about unanimously devoted to undermining the President’s effort to communicate with, and thereby lead, the American people.
John Hinderaker’s points are valid re the media obscuring Bush’s communications. That is why I long ago stopped reading the media speech or press conference reports – instead waiting for the transcript to come out.
However, I still think Bush has failed to effectively communicate the US Iraq policy. And while he has more often taken the podium on the “war on terror” policy, the policy has been obscured by a reluctance to name names. This speech is the first time Bush has been specific about who the enemy is. I understand worries about the “war on Islam” interpretation – but what is the value of a policy if the US voters do not support it?
Prof. Cori Dauber has been a consistent source of analysis on Bush communications and the associated media coverage. Here are some of her early comments, including a thesis on the media’s negative reaction to speeches that do not “make news” the way the media wants to see it:
…So today’s speech I saw as a return to taking care of business, and the White House was correct in characterizing it as a “major speech” in that sense.
However, my sense is that, for the press, the White House was mischaracterizing the speech because it didn’t “make news,” it didn’t announce anything new.
The problem for this White House is that when the President’s speeches are designed to exhort and persuade, to elicit support to stay the course, they won’t be “making news” in the sense the press means that — that is, making change. There is a fundamental disconnect here, I realized listening to the Post’s Dana Priest instaresponse to the speech on MS, that this White House will never be able to resolve.
The press will never like any of these speeches, and will never believe they’re being treated fairly when they’re told in advance that they’re “major.”
This is a gap I suspect the White House will never be able to make up. And so no matter how good the speeches are, they’ll never be reviewed positively by the usual talking heads precisely because “there’s nothing new here.”
Complete transcript of the speech.
Recent Comments