Patrick Belton, over at OxBlog, has this analysis of President Bush’s State of the Union address:
If the amount of time given over to a single idea reflects its relative importance in the State of the Union speech (a reasonable assumption), then the most important themes in tonight’s speech, in descending order, are: the need to commit adequate resources to the military for the war on terror (87 seconds); that government will act against single-sex marriage (84 seconds); the administration’s commitment to strengthening families and religious communities, and to combat juvenile use of drugs (78 seconds); the government’s commitment to education and excellence for each child in America (72 seconds); that the world without Saddam is a better and safer place (69 seconds). The closing matter took 78 seconds, centered around the idea that we are living in historic times.
So, at least on this view, what we should take away from Bush’s speech is roughly: we live in historic times in which our major priorities are fighting terrorists, gays and atheists. And who says there’s no culture war in America?
UPDATE: While I’m at it, the funniest moment in the speech had to be when Bush said:
Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.
(APPLAUSE)
A big bonus for the speechwriter who left a fat pause after that sentence!
Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year.
(APPLAUSE)
Eh. I’d be withholding my applause until I knew what sort of paranoia was going to be legislated in its place.
It is interesting that John Hinckley is being let out of jail. Hmmm……
I suspect that the time differences among ideas that you cite are not statistically significant.
Moreover, it is perhaps a reasonable assumption that the amount of time devoted to an issue is also reflective of the complexity of the issue or the lack of policy coherence toward it (i.e., it takes longer to explain). Hence, if one were committed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, one could make that point relatively quickly. If, however, one wants to express opposition, chastise the judiciary, and allude to the constitutional process without actually articulating policies that might be overly controversial, that takes longer.
And your point about a culture war seems a bit overheated. Certainly, he came down against gay marriage, but there are awfully few places in this world where gay marriage is legal. If that’s symptomatic of a culture war, then it’s a world war. Moreover, in announcing his opposition, he was careful not to present it as you do, as a crusade against gays in general: “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.”
As for the war against atheists, I have trouble finding that in the speech. All I see with respect to religion is an affirmation that Islam is compatible with democracy, an affirmation of the good works done by faith-based charities, and a generic affirmation of “fundamental institutions such as families and schools and religious congregations.” If you see a declaration of war somewhere in the speech, maybe you could lay it out more explicitly.
As for your assertion that “fighting terrorists” is simply part of a culture war, I’m not sure how to respond. Certainly, I think that you’re correct insofar that Bush intended to portray “fighting terrorists” as a major priority, but I also think that every Democratic candidate for president would agree with that bald statement. Obviously, there are enormous disagreements about how to oppose terrorism, but I don’t see that disagreement over methods as a “culture war.” Very few responsible people are objectively supportive of al-Qaeda, after all.
How many times did the President use the words “thugs,” “assassins,” and “killers”?
Loved the Patriot Act applause, too… Sounded more like booing to me though…
Well, here’s a bit of the war on atheists right here -
“The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.”
Peachy. But I want nothing to do with any moral tradition that relies on drivel about who is what in the sight of a fictitious entity, thank you, especially since it is always open to people who argue that way to say the opposite: that some people are indeed anathema in “God’s” sight.
Bush conducts an implicit war on atheists every time he opens his mouth.
“Bush conducts an implicit war on atheists every time he opens his mouth.”
Sounds more like a persecution complex to me.
No, just hyperbole.
But really. What if Bush said “each individual has dignity and value in Allah’s sight”? Or “each individual has dignity and value in Jahweh’s sight”? Or Aruman’s, or Krishna’s, or the Tooth Fairy’s, or Harry Potter’s? Would that be swell too?
Either we treat people as equal before the law for secular reasons, or we don’t. Secularists (and a good few religious people too, actually) think that religious sanctions are not a reliable basis for public policy. I do not feel reassured to hear that Bush in his wisdom has decided that God wants him to treat people as equals. He could decide the opposite tomorrow, and who or what could gainsay him?
If, however, one wants to express opposition, chastise the judiciary, and allude to the constitutional process without actually articulating policies that might be overly controversial, that takes longer.
Well … okay, then, as long as he doesn’t actually want to do anything.
What about when Bush knocked Cheney’s water over? That had to be pretty damn funny.
What about when Bush knocked Cheney’s water over? That had to be pretty damn funny.
Ophelia: Bush said “God”, not “Jesus”. God is generally recognised as an adequate generic term for the putative Deity.
I’m an atheist (little-a, and admittedly more and more sympathetic with religious people every year, if not religion), and I don’t feel the slightest bit threatened, sorry.
Further, you don’t seem to have any grasp of how actual religious people view God’s “commands”. You say Bush “could” decide tomorrow that God wants him to not treat people as equals. Well, I suppose that is technically true - though it’s equally true of someone who claimed to have come to that belief through any other process at all, since anyone can change their mind, no matter what reasons they gave for their previous beliefs.
However, Bush is not a new convert to his religion, and his beliefs about how God would want the Law of the United States to treat people are unlikely to change tomorrow; I’d argue probably less likely than beliefs grounded in another source than belief in unchanging divine principles.
If there was any evidence that Bush was using “God’s Will” as a flexible excuse for changing policies, that would be another matter - but I am aware of no such evidence. That various people throughout history have used “God said so” to excuse all sorts of things, and have changed their minds without changing their justification does not nullify or corrupt a religious justification for policy, any more than the fickleness and abuse of “rational” policies over the past centuries tarnishes the use of reason; any source of policy can be abused - this does not mean that the sources are themselves invalid.
In summary: Phobic reactions to religiosity are not the same as reasoned criticism; if Bush reacted to gay people the way you’re reacting to his religion, you’d call him (rightly) a homophobe. Mote, beam, etc.
(This is not meant to reflect strictly or harshly on Ophelia; I’ve seen it from dozens of people, and while I believe they’re wrong, I don’t think they truly mean ill.
There is, sadly, a strain of thought on the Left that religion is more or less what homosexuality is to a similar strain on the Right - an offense against decency that no sane/intelligent/right-thinking person would condone or accept. Though I confess those on the Right (with some virulent exceptions) seem to be more compassionate and charitable and less condescending about it; they at least talk about loving the sinner, while the Left critique of religion seems to involve either disdain or faux-pity for the religious. But I don’t claim to have a fair sampling of either side to make a claim that such sweeping generalisations are Correct. But I can talk about my observations as such, I think.)
…and the award for the most irony…
(On Gay marrages)
“…the peoples voice must be heard. If judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will upon the people…”
Isn’t that how he got his job? The peoples voices were not that important then.
II don’t see why that was funny. I think it was intended to create the moment where Bush can then turn to the Dems and say “but terrorism isn’t set to expire on that date”. It seemed pretty effective to me.
Alan: The people’s voices were important in exactly the way the Electoral system means them to be, as spelled out in that old-fashioned non-Progressive “Constiution” thing that boring old people are always going on about.
Oh, sure, perhaps you mean the way the Supreme Court made Florida follow its own laws? Or the way selective recounting of Some People’s Votes wasn’t allowed?
Come off it. The “Bush stole the election” schtick was old two years ago, and it’s as false now as it was then. “Move on”, as they say.
Sigivald,
Homosexuality is a terrible analogy. Religion has intellectual content, it’s a cognitive matter, it can be correct or incorrect. I feel no obligation whatever to give it a free pass on the basis that it’s an identity issue of some sort, that it’s somehow ‘like’ race or sexual orientation. It’s not. It gets a free pass because people don’t want to hurt the feelings of believers, but that’s a mistake, in my view.
I don’t know why you talk about being ‘threatened’ - I don’t think I said anything about being ‘threatened.’ That’s not what I’m talking about at all.
“Bush said “God”, not “Jesus”. God is generally recognised as an adequate generic term for the putative Deity.”
Gosh, really? I know that. So what? However generic it is, it’s still a fictitious entity that people pretend is real.
(It’s odd how many atheists fall all over themselves to be nice to religion and how very seldom religion returns the favor.)
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review