Idealism. Knowing that the Times' inauguration lead was the joint product of Elisabeth Bumiller and Richard Stevenson ("Bush, at 2nd Inaugural, Says Spread of Liberty Is the 'Calling of Our Time'"), you could expect a dutiful, not to say relentless, adherence to the script of Bushie triumphalism; nor would you be disappointed. (By all means, compare the lead articles in the Washington Post and the L.A. Times; the NYT's is by far the most lickspittle, the least willing to entertain uncomfortble truths, of the set.) George II, beginning his second term "as a leader tested and altered by the terrible events of one day in his first,"

was sworn in on Thursday ... and in an inaugural address striking for its idealism told Americans that spreading liberty around the world was "the calling of our time" and that the nation's "vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."

[One thing Bumiller and Stevenson work hard at, whenever they're in range of The Speech, is attempting to answer Bush's lyrical flow with one of their own. That's the genuine courtier's instinct at work there. It's also striking how in tune they are with the Leader's unexpressed thoughts: "As general as his words were, they were intended to justify the invasion of Iraq and offer a reason for Americans to be patient with his efforts to quell a violent insurgency." The fact the the words "Iraq" and "insurgency" were never uttered in the speech presents no obstacle to the deep Stevenmillerian intuition.]

Frankly, the thought of taking Dubya's thin gruel of cliché as having substance enough to chew over—even to the extent of critiquing what Bumenson make of it in the Times today—fills me with ennui. And why bother with writers who demonstrate, in almost every assignment, their equal lack of political conscience and of journalistic self-respect? (A question that defines, perhaps, the diminishing returns of a blog project like this one.) Still, I can't forego one small protest, however sure I am that it has no hope of registering:

I like the word "idealism." I think it designates, or ought to designate, something fine: an unwillingness to submerge one's innate sense of possibility in the mereness of the world-as-it-is. At the very least, I think it ought to be reserved for better than the ceremonial rehearsal of the Big Lie* of the moment. "Idealism" may embrace many kinds of antagonism to reality: but the propaganidst's cynical refusal to allow reality to intrude on his rhetorical formulas isn't one of them. Shame on Bumiller and Stevenson for their descent into Orwellian doublespeak, and shame on the Times for giving it a place.

*Update [Saturday, 10 am]: Dan Balz and Jim VanDehei, on A1 in today's WaPo, allow us the chance to, er, contextualize the "idealism" of Bush's inaugural address: "Bush Speech Not a Sign of Policy Shift, Officials Say." My, that was quick. Think A1'll notice?

posted by michael  10:18:39 PM  
tell me about it []