9:37 pm (PST) - January 20, 2004

Flash Analysis of Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address

or

Bush's First Speech of his Re-election Campaign - How Did He Do and What Lessons Can We Learn…

It's always difficult for a rhetorician to analyze a political speech without getting enmeshed in partisan policy analysis. The line between rhetoric and policy has always been fine and grows even finer as image becomes more and more important in our media driven world. In the case of Bush's fourth State of the Union address, my job as speech analyst will be doubly difficult as this was perhaps his most partisan State of the Union, both in content and in response by the joint chambers. But it cannot be ignored as it had a profound effect on Bush's effectiveness, both in his delivery and the rhetorical content of the speech itself.

The most obvious consequence of this was evident in Bush's overall delivery. I have never seen him more comfortable and relaxed in a major political address. Bush was in his element. Even more striking was his comfort during the "domestic" portion of the speech. In his last State of the Union, Bush was more at ease discussing foreign policy and national security. There was a noticeable diminution of energy and interest when he segued into a discussion of domestic policy. In this address, Bush was confident and comfortable throughout. Even as he bills himself as a uniter, he thrives in an atmosphere of conflict and seemed to feed off the divisions that were markedly obvious in the chamber. For example, when Bush stated that some provisions of the PATRIOT Act were due to expire, there was applause from some Democrats who were evidently happy that this deeply divisive legislation was set to be diluted. This open expression of opposition was extremely startling as even a President's bitterest foes are customarily silenced by the unspoken etiquette of the event (it was more reminiscent of British Parliamentary proceedings where opposition routinely heckles and boos speakers than the "politer-than-thou" atmosphere of U.S. Congress), yet Bush was not fazed and in fact, delivered his next line "terrorist threats do not expire" with even greater conviction, which some might say bordered on defiance.

This defiance is something that many pundits predicted would characterize his speech. And indeed, I feel some his comfort stemmed from the no apologies, no explanations tone of the speech that suited Bush's natural style very nicely. However, in keeping with the general theme of partisanship that defines this address, I must caution that his newfound ease with delivery does not guarantee a positive reception. I suspect what will be defined as "strong delivery" by his supporters will probably be defined as "smugness" by his detractors.

Commenting on the effectiveness of the content of the speech is much more complex. The one great inherent flaw of the modern State of the Union is that it is written with two things in mind: 1) pauses for applause during the address and; 2) sound bites for the post address media coverage. These directives mean there is no time for sophisticated arguments to be developed nor is there any room for "rhetorical momentum" a series of phrases, uninterrupted language that swells to a peak, a great rhetorical payoff (think any Churchill address). Because the President is effectively denied both of these very powerful persuasive techniques, modern State of the Unions have very little chance of actually swaying the audience. Perhaps the Bush Administration has realized this and that is why they made no attempt to appeal to those who entered the chamber opposed to their policies. Bush's language was strong, non-conciliatory, and yes that word again, defiant.

But notwithstanding the blunt, speak not-so-softly and carry a big stick style of this speech, there were a couple of interesting moments that we'll highlight just for fun:

1. The War in Iraq

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.

Using a very clever turn of phrase, Bush turns the argument on its head and briefly yet decisively refutes one of the most oft-heard criticisms of Bush's policy in Iraq.

2. Same-Sex Marriage

If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

Here the defiance is tempered by a call for tolerance. Bush uses rhetoric to walk a very fine line on an issue that I predict will become the "abortion" issue of this decade in its potential to polarize the U.S and to stand as a political litmus test (interestingly, for the second year in a row, Bush did not mention abortion, an issue that has merited at least a mention in every State of the Union since Reagan's first in 1981).

And finally,

3. The War on Terror

This is the line that will be the sound byte of the speech because of its suitability for that purpose and because it characterized the speech as a whole:

There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.

That last sentence even got some Democrats to their feet and it is a great line (from a rhetorical point of view, I am trying to be objective regarding ideology and policy). Perhaps even without realizing it, it drew upon visceral fears that all attempts at world government (The League of Nations, The United Nations, The European Union) seem to engender even among those who see the benefits of international cooperation. It also played into the Old Europe/New America paradigm that the Bush Administration created to diminish the effect of French/German opposition to the War in Iraq. We are not children who need to seek the approval of our stodgy elders. We are young but independent, vital, and strong enough to act on our own.

So, How Did He Do??

As I'm writing this, the snap polls are coming in and the initial reaction appears to be ever so slightly negative or at least, not impressed. Seems all this talk of delivery and rhetorical construction means nothing compared to the fact people didn't think Bush truly addressed the important issues: jobs, jobs, jobs.

Oh well. As I said, my job is a difficult one…

Luckily, the lessons are easy:

1. Your natural delivery style will shine if your speech reflects this style.
2. If you want to persuade rather than simply affirm those who are already with you, you must offer arguments, not simple declarations.
3. If you don't give the audience what they want, all the rhetorical sophistication in the world won't save you…

Click on the year for analysis of Bush's 2002 and 2003 State of the Unions.

Click here for analysis of other important political speeches.