The Sound of 1070 Hands Clapping for No Reason: Reflections on the State of the Union Address
For me, the most entertaining part of any State of the Union address is the crowd shots. I like to watch and see who in the audience claps for what, who looks angry, who laughs and shakes their head in disbelief, and who appears to be asleep. During the president’s speech on Tuesday, I was particularly attuned to the clapping habits of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the new Democratic majority. After the first congressional power shift in the Bush presidency, I was curious to see which of the president’s statements they would publicly support and on what issues they would position themselves firmly against his policies. Maybe there would be a few surprises.
There weren’t any surprises. But the most interesting moments were moments of ambiguity – when the president reverted to vague rhetoric that could have multiple meanings and varying implications, and I could detect fleeting expressions of panic on the faces of several legislators as they struggled with the eternal question: “Should I clap now?” Of course, Bush made all of these statements with an air of certainty, as if they were concrete and irrefutable facts of life.
“One question has surely been settled,” he declared during the foreign policy section of his speech, “that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.”
This statement drew a standing ovation from both sides of the aisle, marking what was for me one of the more unsettling moments of the night. I don’t believe that the president’s meaning here is ambiguous. “Taking the fight to the enemy” means more “preemptive” strikes and greater expansion of U.S. military operations to pretty much anywhere that the administration decides to go. But his language was just vague enough that I imagine members of Congress who worry about appearing “weak on terror” felt the safer political decision was to applaud.
I suppose I shouldn’t read too much into audience reaction. They were responding to rhetoric, not making actual policy decisions. But it is rhetoric and misleading narratives that inform and sustain bad policy. The president has retained support for the “war on terror” for so long because he has been able to keep alive the fear-inducing narrative of terrorists who hate freedom and forces of evil lurking in every corner of the world.
“Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy,” he continued. “The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a nation at war.”
The story of a faceless, nationless enemy that can only be stopped by military intervention continues to lay the foundation for the Bush administration’s foreign policy. While public support for the Iraq war has greatly diminished and the new Congress has vowed to change course, I’m not confident that this story—Bush’s justification for war—has also fallen out of favor. If Congress truly wants to change the direction of U.S. foreign policy, they’ll have to abandon the narratives created by the administration and promote a new framework for engaging with the world that prioritizes diplomacy and reawakens the possibility of peaceful conflict resolution.
There weren’t any surprises. But the most interesting moments were moments of ambiguity – when the president reverted to vague rhetoric that could have multiple meanings and varying implications, and I could detect fleeting expressions of panic on the faces of several legislators as they struggled with the eternal question: “Should I clap now?” Of course, Bush made all of these statements with an air of certainty, as if they were concrete and irrefutable facts of life.
“One question has surely been settled,” he declared during the foreign policy section of his speech, “that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.”
This statement drew a standing ovation from both sides of the aisle, marking what was for me one of the more unsettling moments of the night. I don’t believe that the president’s meaning here is ambiguous. “Taking the fight to the enemy” means more “preemptive” strikes and greater expansion of U.S. military operations to pretty much anywhere that the administration decides to go. But his language was just vague enough that I imagine members of Congress who worry about appearing “weak on terror” felt the safer political decision was to applaud.
I suppose I shouldn’t read too much into audience reaction. They were responding to rhetoric, not making actual policy decisions. But it is rhetoric and misleading narratives that inform and sustain bad policy. The president has retained support for the “war on terror” for so long because he has been able to keep alive the fear-inducing narrative of terrorists who hate freedom and forces of evil lurking in every corner of the world.
“Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy,” he continued. “The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a nation at war.”
The story of a faceless, nationless enemy that can only be stopped by military intervention continues to lay the foundation for the Bush administration’s foreign policy. While public support for the Iraq war has greatly diminished and the new Congress has vowed to change course, I’m not confident that this story—Bush’s justification for war—has also fallen out of favor. If Congress truly wants to change the direction of U.S. foreign policy, they’ll have to abandon the narratives created by the administration and promote a new framework for engaging with the world that prioritizes diplomacy and reawakens the possibility of peaceful conflict resolution.
posted by Maureen at
11:33 PM
3 Comments
