What Lies Beneath GWB's Second Inaugural Speech?

The Conservative Citizen Weblog ^ | 01-25-2005 | Alen

[TheConservativeCitizen]

I think that the current incumbent means for us to either take a stand as a nation or else (perhaps) to fall as a nation--and it may well prove to be the latter case--but I believe it will be the former as I have faith in our people amidst adversity (more than at all other times.)

More than at any time in our history, I feel our nation is sharply divided into camps that are split deeply. This is a philosophical split, not about minor points of politics or geographical differences, but issues like the value of human life, the existence of objective right-and-wrong, and a basic definition of responsibility. I consider this divide to be far deeper than those of state's rights and slavery before emancipation.

Two consecutive 50-50 elections between candidates that contrast so strongly is enough to scare me for the future of our nation, but even more for the future of our people and society. Thus, instead of band-aids and balms, he is applying acid in order to etch away the baser metal and determine of what we're truly made. However, unlike jewelry being lowered in a bath we will not go gently--and that is good! Casting things in such stark terms forces a personal reexamination on each listener American or foreign, oppressed or tyrant, irrespective of political persuasion, Christian, Muslim, Jew and atheist.

America is at a crossroads and our people themselves must decide where it is we're going. Just as physical systems tend toward disorder, so go individuals and human institutions--and it will destroy them if left unchecked. If his speech does little more than further galvanize the camps, then it has failed. But if it sharpens our focus and forces us all to ask and answer the really hard questions of ourselves, then we may, as a nation, endure.

At almost 230 years, this is our nation's adolescence--I won't try to guess whether it's early, middle or late in that process. But none of us has any personal experience of the world in which our nation was founded. We are clearly beyond the childlike testing of authority that began in tantrums about the roles of the branches, culminated in the civil war and ended in the failed counter-culture movement of the late 60s and early 70s. (Though many almost universally accepted points of civil rights were permanently established at about the same time, we can no more credit the drugs, sex and music of that era than we can credit Atlantic ocean for bringing the sunrise each morning.)

Today we find ourselves in a world altogether different from that of the founders. Theirs had more in common with first century Jerusalem than with our post-industrial, technological age. But their vision has endured and our republic has resolved so many issues through a dialectic of conservative and liberal discourse. Sadly, of late our courts have overstepped themselves, jeopardizing this process and thus, the future of this nation. Unfortunately, it comes at a point in world events that conspires to place us in a position of awesome power. Will our nation, perhaps not unlike some gangly youth or a green prince, develop the wisdom and maturity to wield our mandate responsibly? Or will we abuse our position and squander this opportunity?

I believe that is the question that Bush hopes we will answer. But he isn't the first to speak so boldly. Reagan, Carter Nixon, JFK, Wilson and FDR all said such things--albeit in somewhat different circumstances--even Ford and Johnson weren't immune. Only Papa Bush and Bill Clinton publicly abstained from such rhetoric. That America is unfamiliar with it may be to our shame--or theirs--or it may be to our credit, I cannot say. I stand firmly convinced that it is only in liberty that humanity is fully enabled to live for the Lord, thus I choose death before enduring mental and spiritual bondage. Whatever else may come, God and history will judge us.