« I'M B-A-A-A-A-A-A-CK! | Main | THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT »
September 9, 2005
BUSH -- FROM BANALITY TO BUFFOONERY
From a speechwriter’s perspective, how has President Bush handled the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina?
At best, he has fallen far short of the soaring rhetoric he displayed in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. At worst, his public statements recall Winston Churchill’s wry comment about “making the rubble bounce” -- by bombing a target already destroyed..
In a time of crisis, a leader must restore confidence as well as order. The banalities that Bush uttered in the White House Rose Garden on August 31, immediately after the storm, seemed more like a brush-off than a serious attempt to boost morale: “Right now, the days seem awfully dark for those affected. I understand that. But I’m confident that, with time, you’ll get your life back in order.”
Thanks for nothing, Mr. President.
A few days later, in Mobile, Alabama, Mr. Bush crowned banality with buffoonery by commiserating with Sen. Trent Lott on the loss of his house: “Out of the rubbles [sic] of Trent Lott’s house – he’s lost his entire house [sic] – there’s going to be a fantastic house. And I’m looking forward to sitting on the porch.” [Sick!!!]
While I’m sure that we’re all sorry that Sen. Lott has lost his house – his entire house – at least Mr. Lott won’t have to bed down on the floor of the Astrodome and eat baloney sandwiches while he figures out how he’s going to rebuild his shattered life.
As a Republican who served in the Reagan White House, I could only shake my head over Bush’s dismal utterances and wonder how the Great Communicator would have rallied the nation in the same circumstances.
My guess is that Ronald Reagan would have turned Hurricane Katrina into an American Dunkirk. He would have told stirring stories about the rescue efforts. He would have saluted the heroes who saved the lives of others at the risk of their own. He would have praised the goodness and compassion of the American people in their rush to aid the victims. He would have focused on the future and wouldn’t have tried to shift the blame to state and local officials for what went wrong. As Churchill inspired the British people to the point that they actually regarded Dunkirk as a victory, Reagan would have turned our response to Katrina into a testimonial to the greatness of the American spirit.
There might even have been a little healing humor.
Over this past weekend, I found myself recalling a story that President Reagan delighted in telling Hispanic groups whenever they visited the White House. During his tenure as Governor of California, parts of the state were slammed by disastrous mudslides. While visiting one of the hardest-hit areas, Reagan called on the mayor of this little Hispanic community. As Reagan told the story, they were standing in the living room of the mayor’s house. Both were wearing hip boots, and they were knee-deep in mud. The mayor turned to Reagan, opened his arms, and with great dignity declared, “Senor Governor, mi casa es su casa" – my house is your house.
In my mind, I can see the wonderfully droll way that Reagan would have delivered the punch line to that story. I can hear the laughter that would have followed. And I can imagine what he would have said next: “Once again, fellow Americans, ‘our’ house has been destroyed. The houses that have been lost to Hurricane Katrina are our houses because we are one nation and one people. Our hearts and our hands go out to the victims of this terrible tragedy. In the weeks, months and years that lie ahead we will do out part as a nation to help our neighbors in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama rebuild their homes, their businesses and their lives. After all – isn’t that what Americans do?”
Napoleon once said that a leader is a dealer in hope. Ronald Reagan always remembered that great truth. It’s a pity that George W. Bush appears to have forgotten it.
Posted by hal at September 9, 2005 11:55 AM
Comments
Well, Hal, I wwas in high school right around the time you were in the White House. I grew up taking for granted that, when bad things happened--the Challenger disaster comes to mind--the president knew what to say to the nation: what should be said, what people needed to hear.
I don't remember George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton letting me down on that score--or, as you point out, this president, until now. (Remember, he had a different speechwriter at 9/11 than he does now.)
So I guess I didn't think addressing a nation in a troubled moment was all that difficult: People want you to be good, and their rhetorical needs are simple.
GW's recent idiocy makes him the first president of my politically conscious life who has blown such a big moment.
It's bewildering.
Posted by: David Murray at September 9, 2005 3:20 PM
Well, in order to provide for those allegedly simple rhetorical needs, one has to be at least marginally engaged with the people. I'm not a Reaganite by a far stretch, and he could be (to me) appallingly conservative and stubborn at times, but it was always obvious that he genuinely *cared* about people -- not just their votes, but the individuals behind them. I'm not saying the current president has no feelings or doesn't care. I don't know him, so I'm not qualified to make those judgments about his character. But he gives the *impression* that he's so disconnected from these people's lives that they can't really matter to him. He lacks, in a word, empathy.
That's something that his speechwriters should be working hard to compensate for, but it seems that they were still on vacation last week, too. Of course, those off-the-cuff porch moments are as indicative as the need for good speech coaching as good speech writing. Why is someone on his staff not beating his less flattering instincts into submission? Or are liberal-to-moderate Dems like myself the only people outraged by the ... I'm not even sure of the word ... inanities? fatuousness? (Can I even *do* that to an adjective?)
Posted by: DeAnna B at September 9, 2005 5:32 PM