We all watched George W. Bush's bullhorn speech and Barack Obama's ISIS speech. I think Bush's speech was far superior. While both tried to appeal to our patriotism, Bush did so with much greater success. I want to say right now that I am liberal, in case that matters to any of you. Before I talk about why Bush's speech was better, I want to show how both presidents' pre-speech situations were similar. In both cases, there was a general, bipartisan consensus about what the United States government should do. In 2001, we wanted revenge no matter the cost. Now, we want to eradicate ISIS without getting involved in a war. Obviously there are huge differences in the situations too, but I want to stress that there was a bipartisan consensus in both cases.
Bush used this rare moment of agreement to unite America. In the days immediately following 9/11, Bush had a 90% approval rating. That is the highest approval rating ever for an American president. He united us by harnessing raw emotion. Any American who says they weren't moved by the bullhorn speech is lying through their teeth. Contrast Bush's unscripted passion, with Obama's drab, teleprompter-induced, monotone and it is clear where Obama fell short. Obama certainly knows how to evoke emotion. I cannot describe the emotions I felt as I watched his speech in Grant Park during the election night of 2008. But since Obama was elected, the passion he used to unify Americans of all walks of life has been absent. I am not suggesting that Obama shooting guns into the air while chanting "USA!" would give him a 90% approval rating, but any display of emotion would have been more effective than what he gave. This remains true no matter how strong his reasoning or logic is.
I find it quite eerie that under incredibly similar situations 13 years apart, support for destroying both terrorist organizations was and is universal with Americans. I also find it ironic that a governmental system designed so all parties can have a little bit of what they want, the only times both parties can agree on something is when a large and dangerous threat is posed.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are similarities between the two speeches, but that is true in any speech that a U.S. President has given as a reason to go for war. I don't think the two speeches can be compared, as President Obama's speech was a formal speech at the White House, where as Bush's speech was a rally cry at the grounds of the biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history. History shows that while unfortunate and horrible, great tragedy brings people together, and reinforces their support in leaders who promise change. Obama's speech fell short emotionally because it lacked the immediate hurt that Bush's speech had, and was done without an audience of patriotic rescue workers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Arjun R.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are obvious comparisons between the two speeches, I don't think that it's very fair to compare the two. These to speeches were yes, very important in there own, however spoken for completely two different reasons and under different circumstances. I think that had Obama had to have made an emotionally compelling speech to resonate with his audience, he very well could have. In this particular speech sympathy wasn't one of his main goals. Obama's speech was more informal where as Bush's was emotional.