State of the Union

Just for kicks, Your Humble Blogger looked at the instances of the word ‘peace’ in Our Only President’s recent report to Congress on the State of the Union. It’s one of those hot words; when a nation is at war (and he says we are, the Consitution notwithstanding), peace is the goal. The point of war is not, for sane people, the war itself, but the particular peace that only the current war can bring us toward. One can, rhetorically, use peace as the opposite of war, if one is against a particular war. It is, however, only a slight extension of a well-known platitude to say ‘If you want peace, win this war’. In fact, that is the idea the President is selling; let’s see how he does.

The first instance is addressed to the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi: “Sir, America stands with you and the Iraqi people as you build a free and peaceful nation.” It’s clear, here, that the ultimate goal of the war is peace, a peace that was (in this rhetoric) unattainable under Hussein. Score one for Pres. Bush; he has said what he intended to say, and said it well.

The second instance is addressed to the Congress: “You in the Congress have ... cast the difficult votes of war and peace.” Is he suggesting that some in Congress voted for war and some for peace? Surely, Rep. Kucinich would like that interpretation. Or that the Congress, as a whole, passed the ‘war and peace’ resolution against opposition which was against both war and peace? No, this reference makes no sense; I score the President one out of two so far.

He gets back on track with the third instance: “For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.” Note, by the way, the conjoining of freedom and peace; the two concepts are scarcely synonymous, and placing them next to each other won’t make them so (more on this later). Here, he places in opposition the two things he needs to do: peace (and freedom) on the one side, and Hussein’s regime on the other. War is not the opposite of peace, here; Hussein is, and by extension so is the inaction that would have allowed his reign to continue. Two for Pres. Bush, against one.

The fourth and fifth instances are part of a paragraph I will quote in full, as it is the cap to the first half of his speech, the half that deals with foreign policy directly.

America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace—a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom.

Is this successful? I was initially inclined to say no, but on second thought I think it is. Remember, we are, presumably, fighting this war in order to get through it to the other side, and ultimately, we had better believe that what is on the other side of the war is better than what was on this one. In other words, as we know that peace is better than war, the case for war must be that war-and-whatever is better than peace-and-whatever. The whatevers are usually what make the case. On the other hand, you can make war seem better or worse, as you want to, to boost your whatevers on that side. It’s far harder to make peace seem better or worse. Or is it? One can qualify: we are for democratic peace, we are for peace with honor, we are for peace only on our own terms. And such terms as the dignity and rights of every man and woman (or, in the third instance, freedom) are not to be sneezed at.

Read it again. “Our aim is a democratic peace—a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman.” Does that mean we won’t accept peace until every man and every woman is treated with dignity, and accorded full human rights? Or does it mean that peace without those conditions is not really peace? Remember, those conditions will never be met (until, perhaps, the Eternal Sabbath). We are no longer talking about the dear nurse of arts, plenties, and joyful births, who thrives wherever war does not, but about lofty and distant political goals. In the meantime, doesn’t war seem just a tad better?

Perhaps not. Perhaps the whole paragraph is just self-congratulatory bloviating. You, Gentle Reader, be the judge. I’ll leave the final score open.

By the way, Our Only President balances those five instances of the word ‘peace’ with twelve of the word ‘war’. There are twenty instances of the word ‘freedom’ and one of liberty; we can guess whether he considers freedom or peace more important. Also, there are twenty-one instances of the word ‘tax’; were we not at war, I would agree that the President should discuss the tax situation with Congress as much as the military one. President Clinton’s interminable policy lists certainly leaned heavily on such matters. But we are at war, and his party’s obsession with tax rates is getting out of control.

Just my opinion, of course. Just to add an unnecessary note—Your Humble Blogger is attempting, for the moment, to look at the use of rhetoric in this speech. I’m not trying to argue the substance of whether the Ba’athists were (or are) a threat to peace; the substance of that point is addressed in the speech, and I’ve ignored it. My point is that Our Only President had a rhetorical goal (one of many), and I don’t really know whether he achieved it.

Redintegro Iraq,
-Vardibidian.