George just said he was going "to bring hope and work to all of America." This is the nub of why these conventions in US politics should be considered ridiculous by the US electorate - they are non-stop spouting the fanciful, Christmas wish lists which float in space and will drift away forgotten, unlinked to actual policy. I suppose this is inevitable. In a society as structurally complex as the USA, how could an hour of disjointed aphorisms - even by a Presidential candidate - on economics be tested against results?
Maybe I think that the speech sounds so banal because I am listening on that wonder medium, radio. I am unaware of where in the room the speaker is standing, what he is wearing, how sincere he looks and who the camera catches applauding when the red light we can see says "applaud." Funny, for example, I was not moved when he said "we will leave no child behind" in Spanish and English because I know children will, in fact, be left behind who ever wins. One interesting things in George's speech is the attack on the judicial structure. Judges, trial lawyers and damage awards are all problems needing fixing by limitation of judicial autonomy. The disruptions by ladies described as being in conservative dark pant suits is kind of interesting on radio. [Mental note: in this new world, revisit my opinion on ladies in conservative dark pant suits.] Lots of Afghanistan all of a sudden. Did he say Iraq has a "strongman" Prime Minister? I am sure I misheard it. [I am really starting to worry about ladies in conservative dark pant suits.]
Anyway...in Canada we are subject to the speech from the throne whenever the Federal Parliament opens in which a person who has no power, the Governor General, gives a speech written by the person in power, the Prime Minister, about things which may be done...but often aren't. It would be an illuminating waste of time to find out how many times child care programs have been promised in speeches from the throne. As far as I can tell US National Conventions appear to be four days of speeches from the throne.
Update: George says freedom is almighty God's gift to every person in the world. Don't get me wrong - that would be a good God. But the Letter to Philemon can raise doubts and I have raised this before. On the day that France banned religious garments in state schools, is the USA now being affirmed as a Christian democracy rather than a secular one? Being Christian, I fear for the misuse of the faith by a state in the same way that neo-cons view the misappropriation of their beloved faith in economic market principles by socialist bureaucrats. This does not mean the goals of "the century of liberty" are not valid. I just get the heebeejeebees when God gets co-opted for anything. After all, he's a comin' like a thief in the night not an executive branch of a government...maybe He's now comin' like a lady in a conservative dark pant suit, too.
Comments
Ben - September 3, 2004 1:36 PM
The only thing more irrelevant than what he candidates say at their conventions is what they say during the debates. Remember 2000? Granted 'the world has changed since 9/11' but George W was the man who said America's military would only be used when absolutely necessary, for defense only, and never for nation building. The argument of course is that going into Iraq was necessary and defensive but does anyone really believe that anymore?
Given tha the debate winners are declared with complete disregard for who actually debated the most effectively they just might be more arbitrary and useless than throne speeches.
SayNay? - September 3, 2004 2:57 PM
On the "is the USA now being affirmed as a Christian democracy rather than a secular one" point Al was making: Dubya's reference to "a nation blessed by God" remains an essential part of the fabric of the belief system in the US and would appear to be nothing new to American politics, amounting to a "shift" or a "new affirmation".
For instance, the Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God", the Pledge of Allegiance refers to "One Nation Under God", of course various US currency has the motto "In God We Trust" (everyone else pays cash)and even the flag folding ceremony is laden with references to God.
It can be argued that "God" is generic to all major religions and therefore the reference is not offensive to those who are not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, but this argument would require that if you are Muslim, for instance, you accept that your "Allah" is one and the same as Dubya's and the Founding Fathers' "God" who particularly "blessed" America. And this argument still "excludes" those who do not share the "one God" belief system.
I suppose that the US will become truly secular when the first US President-elect chooses to be "affirmed", rather than "sworn".
For a kind of funny take on the "God" debate in the US see: http://www.satirewire.com/news/june02/pledge.shtml
Alan - September 3, 2004 3:21 PM
I have heard much discussion recently on the difference, however, between the God the creator theosophist point of view underlying the 18th century references to God which would be in line with the generic deist view on one hand and, on the other, the very different modern US protestant evangelical point of view. Franklin, Washington and Jefferson would not have personally supported making a state based on personal experience and revelation of Christ in the New Testament (or even just the bits evangelicals use). It is that I think that Dubya was speaking on behalf of and which constitutes change.
SayNay? - September 5, 2004 5:30 PM
Except that Franklin, Washington and Jefferson et al would have accepted Christ as their "saviour" as the Son of God. While I see your point, Al, I don't think Dubya has changed the "landscape", or meaning of the reference to "God" in US politics, by stating openly that he accepts Christ as his "personal" saviour.
Alan - September 5, 2004 5:45 PM
I think you are making an assumption but stand to be corrected. I understand that the concept of "personal savior" is a post-Methodist view spreading in popularity as a manner in which to characterize one's Christian faith from the early 1800s revivals. Both the lads of 1776 and Dubya may have been expressing their personal fervour but they I believe that they speak from different ages and different understanding and experience of the fervour. One other thing - all the early lads were Masons and the masonic imagery is much more prevalent in the early documents, mottos and images than anything comparable to modern evangelical protestantism.