By Lauren del ValleNEWS EDITOR
During his eight-year term in office, former President George W. Bush’s administration used premeditated rhetoric in an effort to spin the public’s perception of political events, according to a panel of academic scholars at the George W. Bush conference.
The panel of six, moderated by Philip Dalton, Department of Rhetoric chair, took the stage in the Student Center Theater Tuesday morning to discuss political communication strategies of the Bush administration.
The New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker served as the discussant responding to the theses of the four scholars who presented their academic dissertations. Baker spoke in an interview to the importance of scholarly discussion such as that held at last week’s conference.
“An eight-year administration is [about] 2,500 days of complete and utter chaos. It’s not orchestrated, its not laid in any kind of orderly way… Every president comes into office thinking he or she is going to control events and events end up controlling them,” said Baker. “So to come out now after the fact… and try to make sense of all that, it’s incredibly important both for students and I think all of us of citizens, really. How do you make sense of eight years of what seemingly random events but in fact all really add up to something – what do they add up to?”
Wayne State University political science professor Philip Abbott discussed the way in which presidents use their retrospective memoirs to justify their decisions made in office in a dry, defensive and usually chronological fashion.
“For any of you that have read a presidential memoir, you’ll know what a difficult task it is. You have to have a strong cup of coffee and a straight chair to deal with them,” said Abbott.
Abbott discussed points about Bush’s memoir from his thesis, “Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: How George W. Bush Plays the ‘Blame Game.’” He highlighted the way in which the former president organized the memoir in terms of decisions which allowed Bush to most effectively play the “blame game.”
Professors of communications studies Wayne Kraemer and Dr. Ann Burnette from Texas State University presented their research delving into the rhetoric used in Bush’s speeches at the five-year anniversary of 9/11 in 2006 and his farewell address on Jan. 15, 2009. Their thesis, “Communicating a Rationale for War: George W. Bush and the Rhetoric of Imperial Righteousness,” highlighted the way in which Bush marshalled support by personifying the enemy and tapping into characteristically American ideals.
Bush took care not to demonize the peaceful majority of Islamic practitioners and did so by describing the Muslim terrorists as “extremists driven by a perverted vision of Islam,” according to Burnette and Kraemer.
He called on the American people to resist complacency by accepting the country’s moral and social responsibility to globalize democracy and prevent terrorism from reaching American shores. Kraemer summarized this by quoting Bush’s statement: “The strongest weapon in our arsenal is the power of freedom.”
Ben Voth, associate professor of communication studies from Southern Methodist University, spoke to Bush’s “breaking the silence” about genocide that was occurring worldwide in an era in which such issues were swept under the rug. Voth’s dissertation, titled “President Bush’s Rhetoric and Policy against Genocide,” pointed to Bush’s rhetorical approach to the controversial foreign issue shaped by his description of genocide as one in which “freedom and fear are at war.”
In response to the panelists, Baker identified Bush as a sort-of “CEO president” who sought to avoid micromanaging issues which led to criticism of his detachment from major decisions made by his administration. He also drew a parallel between Bush’s “preemptive justification” for war in Iran and Iraq, and President Obama’s current rationale for political and military action against ISIS. He speculated that Obama would not admit to such a description of his recent actions as he actively condemns Bush’s foreign policy. The panel agreed with these points.
Baker said in an interview that the comprehensive analysis made at conferences such as this affect present political action and future presidencies.
“President Obama is clearly making decisions based on what he thinks are the lessons from President Bush – rightly or wrongly, and the next president will make decisions almost certainly based on what he or she thinks are the mistakes President Obama has made,” said Baker. “So in order to try to shape what those lessons are… you need time, distance and thoughtful debate like we’ve had, and I think that’s incredibly important for every president.”