Introduction
One of the greatest tragic attacks in American history was the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. Al-Qaeda, an Islamic terrorist association, conducted four planned terrorist strikes against the US. Over 25 thousand individuals suffered injuries throughout the assaults, and nearly three thousand Americans perished. The incidents caused about $10 million worth of material destruction across the nation. Lastly, numerous deaths following 9/11 have been attributed to malignancies and breathing problems linked to the substances emitted throughout the attacks.
Bush’s Response to the Nation
Bush addressed the congress with a memorable speech following this terrorist attack. He responded by declaring that terrorist assaults can rock the basis of the US’s tallest structure, but they cannot impact the nation’s basis. In many aspects, President George W. Bush’s 9/11 speech was coercive, attempting to influence the audience against democratic principles. Using an ideological criticism perspective, the dialect and topics of the address have influenced American diplomatic and partisan debates.
National Unity and Patriotism
Most of President Bush’s speeches were written in extremely idealistic and nationalist terms. Bush tried to unite citizens in the fight over the powers of wickedness during that time of tragedy overtaking the American people. He claimed that Americans have prevailed despite the terrorist assaults and should have faith in the potential administration of fairness. The theme is highly patriotic and obscure, allowing for security and uniformity for all Americans.
Bush utilizes language and symbols such as flags, candles, and blood to make points and support his ideologies. Candles are used to remember the deceased, the flag stands for American patriotism, and blood emphasizes the pain endured. Bush uses these symbols in his address to inspire the American people to work together toward a shared objective. Using words like “we will” is meant to evoke a sense of commitment and tenacity in a situation of difficulty (Bush, para. 5). Additionally, the prevalent idea of supernatural intervention is reinforced by incorporating religious terminology and figurative language.
Resilience and Strength in Adversity
The speech tells a story of the tenacity and adaptability of Americans. Bush underlines that despite the assaults, the US will prevail, and its inhabitants will come out of them stronger and more unified. The purpose of this speech is to convince the American people and to support the notion that the US is a strong and robust country. It implies that the nation is particularly well-equipped to endure and triumph over hardship.
In a complex and interrelated world, using a lot of power and resilience in a discussion might mask the facts of susceptibility and reliance (Mikulewicz 11). The address could make people fail to recognize how interrelated and dependent worldwide crises are by highlighting American suppleness and power. Too much resilience can also result in a lack of fundamental reflective thinking on American behavior and a failure to acknowledge how American policies fuel international conflict.
The Concept of Binary Morality
The terrorists who executed the assaults are shown to be wicked in Bush’s address, and the humanity and dignity of the US individuals are contrasted with them; this portrays the notion of binary morality. This supports the belief that America is a power for goodness around the globe and that its adversaries are inherently morally repugnant and detestable. This concept is especially clear in Bush’s claim that all terrorist methods are trained in places like Afghanistan (Bush, p. 7).
Binary morality can defend actions that put American concerns ahead of those of other countries by portraying them as profoundly at odds with US principles. An absence of analytical and reflective thinking might result from binary morality, which overgeneralizes complicated global concerns (Stanley et al. 1). Ethical binary minimizes the intricate past, partisan, and fiscal elements that form international disputes by portraying the globe as a straightforward confrontation against the righteous and the wicked. It can also result in a lack of compassion for other countries and ignorance of the methods through which American policies fuel international strife.
Epideictic Rhetoric and National Solidarity
Bush’s 9/11 discourse was almost completely epideictic; it emphasized the positive aspects of America while appealing to themes of national togetherness. This additionally suggests that the speech was not intended to convince its listeners of policy issues. Despite his apparent partisan deficiencies, the president was able to control public views of the incidents of September 11 due to his rhetorical options. By relieving them of the responsibility of critical consideration, Bush turned the American people into apathetic observers instead of engaged critics.
The address fits under the epideictic category since the president rarely prompted his listeners to consider the practicality of political actions. Bush had the mentality that everything he was undertaking was good and that he was certain that wicked people had struck America. His tone was both passively indignant that a person could do this and sorrowful for the demise of the victims of the terrorist strikes.
American Exceptionalism
American exceptionalism and the preeminence of American ideals are other ideologies in Bush’s address. By framing them as required to defend American principles and ward off new assaults, he used this philosophy to defend the measures the nation’s government took in reaction to the 9/11 atrocities. The idea of American exceptionalism contends that, because of its superiority and singularity, the country has a distinct duty to advance equality and liberty throughout the globe (Saghaye-Biria 60). This topic supports the notion that the US is a power for beneficial change globally and suggests that those who reject American principles do so from a basic standpoint.
American exceptionalism may endorse practices that put US concerns ahead of those of other countries by portraying it as a moral nation. This may result in alienation, a lack of sympathy for other countries, and a need for more constructive contemplation on American policy. It can instill an impression of ethical supremacy and serve as a justification for transgressions of civil rights and global laws (Mills and Payne 402). American exceptionalism can hide the manner through which the nation’s actions promote international war.
Conclusion
Based on the prevalent concept of American exceptionalism as well as the supremacy of American ideals, Bush’s 9/11 Speech to the People creates a specific perspective. The American people are brought together by symbolic practice, and the prevailing ideology is reinforced through the employment of religious language and imagery. Bush’s adoption of the words such as unity and strength had a deeper significance. American public solidarity may contribute to improved national security.
Many of his concepts and behaviors ran counter to American constitutional principles, and this discourse was repressive in certain instances as it attempted to sway the crowd’s opinions. He nevertheless managed to close the address with an approach that was soothing to the American people and was backed by his use of a Bible verse to help put things in perspective. Bush successfully encouraged the populace and convinced them of the necessity of an anti-terrorism strategy in this context.
Works Cited
Bush, George W. “Address to Joint Session of Congress Following 9/11 Attacks.” American Rhetoric. 2001. Web.
Mikulewicz, Michael. “Thwarting Adaptation’s Potential? A Critique of Resilience and Climate-Resilient Development.” Geoforum, vol. 104, 2019, pp. 267–282. Web.
Mills, Kurt, and Rodger A. Payne. “America First and the Human Rights Regime.” Journal of Human Rights, vol. 19, no. 4, 2020, pp. 399–424. Web.
Saghaye-Biria, Hakimeh. “Decolonizing the ‘Universal’ Human Rights Regime: Questioning American Exceptionalism and Orientalism.” ReOrient, vol. 4, no. 1, 2018, pp. 59–77. Web.
Stanley, Matthew L., et al. “Structure-Seeking as a Psychological Antecedent of Beliefs about Morality.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 149, no. 10, 2020, pp. 1–12. Web.