-rhetorical positioning-

On the Poetics list, I recently defended the rhetoric of Bush's address to the nation following the breakup of the Columbia (some on the list had suggested immediately following the incident that the administration would use this as fodder for their anti-terror war-wongering). The discussion has been, I think, quite interesting. Here is what I said:

I guess I feel the need to defend my posiiton a little more, though not sure quite why. All I'm trying to say that, regardless of your political leanings, the speech (though poorly delivered) was a good one and lacked any sense of the war-mongering that some suggest. And though it was tinged with religion, it was not a fundementalist view that was was present in those last few paragraphs. The quote from Isaiah was particularly effective, given that the speech was being delivered to Isreal as well as the US. And the way in which the speech tied man's scientific yearning for understanding--"Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand"--was neatly paralleled with religous doubt and hope in the last lines: "The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that they are all safely home."

Look, I'm not supportive of the way the Administration is handling the current global crises either, but the speech was very well meaning and well crafted. To blindly reject anything put forth by the administration does just as much damage as blindly accepting it.

Aldon Nielson and Gerald Schwartz responded; Aldon questioned what version of Isaiah was quoted (a great question, it turns out), and Gerald extended some questions based upon my reading of the speech. Taking on much more of a role of "Biblical scholar" than I am comfortable with, I tried to answer their questions as best I could:

Aldon Nielson wrote:
> Does anybody know which version of Isaiah was being quoted
> from? It wasn't the wording I remembered from youth --

It's from the NIV. The text of the NIV differs here from the Oxford NRSV (which closely follows the King James wording in this passage).

NIV:
(Isaiah 40.26)
Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one,
and calls them each by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

Oxford NRSV:
(Isaiah 40.26)
Lift your eyes on high and see:
Who created these?
He who brings out their host and numbers them
calling them all by name;
because he is great in strength,
mighty in power,
not one is missing.

Now it IS quite interesting that the NIV is the edition used, because it is traditionally a more conservative/fundamentalist version of the Bible; it is the version that is most commonly used to evidence claims that homosexuality is "sin" (Most Biblical scholars rely instead on the Oxford NRSV, which has a more studied and more inclusive language). It could have been used because of the clearer reference to the stars; however, Gerald's claim that the quote may have been "inserted by the man's own fervent pitch" seems to be supported by the text quoted from. In other words, Bush's policy decisions across the board might lead one to believe that it is the NIV that he reads at long stretches.

Gerald Schwartz wrote:
> >I will just say that my eyes
> >did a bit of a roll, thinking a more secular statement might have
> >served the moment more equitably. (This was a point brought
> >up by some friends of mine who are practicing Hindu.)
> >
> >Perhaps I over-reacted, still inflamed, as I am over his earlier
> >courtship with anti- Catholic/ Jew and-who-knows-who-else Bob Jones
> >"University", as well as all the Christian Vs. Muslim
> >rhetoric leading up to what seems to be a count down.

I agree with Gerald that more equitable statements might have been offered. But I think if we asked the administration, then they might say he was being equitable by quoting from a Judaic prophet instead of a Christian one. But Gerald's point is very well taken; a simple reference to a higher power would have given the proper elegiac sense without offending myriad other religions.

Again, I want to stress that I'm simply defending the rhetoric of this one speech. I disagree with a lot of the stances of this administration (as an independent, I disagree with a lot of what EVERY administration puts forth), and wholeheartedly understand your displeasure with Bush's courtship of Bob Jones University and the administration's current moves toward war.

This sort of discussion--quickly paced, back and forth banter--is a particular strength of the listserv; it is one of the reasons I love the vital discussions that listservs communely foster. The discussions on listservs are different than discussions on blogs, but I find that both are academically valuable.

Listserv communities progress through contention while blogging communities generally progress through concurrence.

Posted by brandon barr at February 4, 2003 09:34 AM | TrackBack