The Belgravia Dispatch: The Rhetoric of Unity, Again

September 10, 2006

The Rhetoric of Unity, Again

I know many readers have taken objection to my reading of Rumsfeld's American Legion speech, and via Frank Rich today, we are reminded that talk of "unity" is hardly unique to Rumsfeld. Rich quotes FDR's immortal line about the "warm courage of national unity", from his First Inaugural Address (by coincidence, and like Hitler's Berlin Proclamation and Heidegger's Rector's Address, FDR was also speaking in 1933). But here's the rub. Unlike Rumsfeld, FDR's address was not a thinly veiled attempt to tar opponents of the Administration as appeasers. Unlike Rumsfeld, FDR doesn't stoop to divisive rhetoric such as "(b)ut some seem not to have learned history's lessons". Unlike Rumsfeld, there is not rank fear mongering: ("we hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless. But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats), but rather, just the opposite:

This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

Of course, FDR was speaking about emerging from the trauma of the Great Depression, not the threat of international terror. But the point here isn't the specific subject matter of the speech, but rather that FDR was appealing to our 'better angels', if you will, a sense of honesty and optimism in our national discourse, rather than the fear mongering rhetoric of the Rumsfeld's that seeks to paint some among us as but appeasers and defeatists.

Posted by Gregory at September 10, 2006 05:42 PM

Comments

But the point here isn't the specific subject matter of the speech, but rather that FDR was appealing to our 'better angels', if you will, a sense of honesty and optimism in our national discourse, rather than the fear mongering rhetoric of the Rumsfeld's that seeks to paint some among us as but appeasers and defeatists.

He didn't neglect to point to some scapegoats, in this case 'unscrupulous money changers'.

Posted by: David Tomlin at September 10, 2006 08:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

Golly, what a wonderful man that FDR was - not a single flaw - and certainly not a partisan bone in his body. All his speeches simply reflected the nature of the fairy tale land in which Americans lived at the time - all lollipops and gum drops.

Get real, Greg. I'm willing to bet, if you go through FDR's speeches over the years in the late 30s through 1941/42, you'll find some serious criticism of the America First crowd - probably following a template not all that dissimilar to Rumsfeld's speech. Something tells me FDR was probably not a huge fan of Lindbergh's stance vis-a-vis Nazi Germany, Hitler and WWII.

Rumsfeld has made a lot of mistakes, but your RDS (Rumsfeld Derangement Syndrome) is warping your mind into the alternate reality in which, apparently, no past public figure who we respect today ever played politics, or had opponents or thought he was right and other people were wrong and was willing to say that. Everyone else in history has suddenly become a saint just so that you'd be that miuch more able to paint Rumseld as the devil incarnate, a buffoon, or both.

It's getting old, real fast.

Posted by: Anon at September 10, 2006 08:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

Since I am disposed to regard Americans whose intellectual world revolves around Europe as either a menace or a nuisance -- depending largely on whether they hold high public office or not -- I welcome evidence suggesting, however tentatively, that Greg is not one of them. Certainly a contrast of Sec. Rumsfeld with Franklin Roosevelt is a more promising tack than a comparison of Rumsfeld with Adolf Hitler.

Posted by: Zathras at September 10, 2006 09:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16166

'The task of defeating Hitler may be long and arduous. There are a few appeasers and Nazi sympathizers who say it cannot be done. They even ask me to negotiate with Hitler—to pray for crumbs from his victorious table. They do, in fact, ask me to become the modern Benedict Arnold and betray all that I hold dear- my devotion to our freedom—to our churches—to our country. This course I have rejected—I reject it again.'

I googled 'Franklin Roosevelt Nazi sympathizers'. The above was the first hit.

Posted by: David Tomlin at September 10, 2006 11:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

Unlike Rumsfeld, FDR doesn't stoop to divisive rhetoric such as "(b)ut some seem not to have learned history's lessons"

How is that divisive? Are you telling me you've never met a single person who doesn't know anything about history and is clueless about the threat we face?

It should also be noted that 1944 Republican Presidential candidate Thomas Dewey wanted to use the sneak attack on Pear Harbor as an issue in the election. George Marshall asked him not to because it would jeopardize our ability to intercept Japanese communications. So Dewey refrained from bringing it up. I wish the Democrats were capable of putting the national interest above short term political gain like that. They would regain a lot of credibility.

Posted by: andrew at September 11, 2006 01:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

Anon,

During World War 2, American progressives learned that American right-wingers in the Republican Party would always, when threatened, revert to protecting and promoting fascism.

Posted by: NeoDude at September 11, 2006 03:02 AM | Permalink to this comment

Let's keep the key difference in mind, shall we, kiddies? As Djerejian detailed in his post "Deconstructing Rummy" -- complete with protracted passages frrom Rumsfeld's speech -- Rummy said flatly that everyone who says we're fighting in the WRONG PLACE by invading Iraq, or by using the WRONG STRATEGIES in our war there, or by using counterproductive torture techniques, is really in favor of our not fighting the Islamic Fascist movement at all. Not quite what FDR was saying: he never said that the people who wanted him to open up a second front (prematurely) were actually Nazi sympathizers. There have never been more than a miniscule number of people in this country who wanted us to surrender to the Islamofascists; for Rumsfeld to deliberately exaggerate their number as part of this administration's increasingly frantic efforts to cover its ass for its glaring strategic blunders is a fucking outrage.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 11, 2006 06:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

Actually, if you want a more accurate historical analogy to Rummy's nauseating speech, it's as though Chamberlain and Churchill had insisted that anyone who wanted to evacuate the British troops from Dunkirk -- instead of having them fight uselessly to the death -- was really in favor of surrendering to the Nazis.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 11, 2006 06:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

Its apparent that Gregs detractors here are the only intelligent contributors to this site

Posted by: pogue mahone at September 11, 2006 07:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

Actually, what's extremely apparent here is that some of Greg's detractors can't spell. (Incidentally, a confession of ignorance on my part: "Pogue Mahone" is such an unusual name that I assumed it had to be a real name rather than a pseudonym. Turns out that it's the name of an Irish rock band, further amplifying my suspicions that our own P.M. is a teenager -- and not a very bright one at that.)

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 11, 2006 10:14 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Weekend Reading \| Main \| The State of Ground Zero » September 10, 2006 The Rhetoric of Unity, Again I know many readers have taken objection to my reading of Rumsfeld's American Legion speech, and via Frank Rich today, we are reminded that talk of "unity" is hardly unique to Rumsfeld. Rich quotes FDR's immortal line about the "warm courage of national unity", from his First Inaugural Address (by coincidence, and like Hitler's Berlin Proclamation and Heidegger's Rector's Address, FDR was also speaking in 1933). But here's the rub. Unlike Rumsfeld, FDR's address was not a thinly veiled attempt to tar opponents of the Administration as appeasers. Unlike Rumsfeld, FDR doesn't stoop to divisive rhetoric such as "(b)ut some seem not to have learned history's lessons". Unlike Rumsfeld, there is not rank fear mongering: ("we hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless. But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats), but rather, just the opposite: This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days. Of course, FDR was speaking about emerging from the trauma of the Great Depression, not the threat of international terror. But the point here isn't the specific subject matter of the speech, but rather that FDR was appealing to our 'better angels', if you will, a sense of honesty and optimism in our national discourse, rather than the fear mongering rhetoric of the Rumsfeld's that seeks to paint some among us as but appeasers and defeatists. Posted by Gregory at September 10, 2006 05:42 PM Comments But the point here isn't the specific subject matter of the speech, but rather that FDR was appealing to our 'better angels', if you will, a sense of honesty and optimism in our national discourse, rather than the fear mongering rhetoric of the Rumsfeld's that seeks to paint some among us as but appeasers and defeatists. He didn't neglect to point to some scapegoats, in this case 'unscrupulous money changers'. Posted by: David Tomlin at September 10, 2006 08:45 PM \| Permalink to this comment Golly, what a wonderful man that FDR was - not a single flaw - and certainly not a partisan bone in his body. All his speeches simply reflected the nature of the fairy tale land in which Americans lived at the time - all lollipops and gum drops. Get real, Greg. I'm willing to bet, if you go through FDR's speeches over the years in the late 30s through 1941/42, you'll find some serious criticism of the America First crowd - probably following a template not all that dissimilar to Rumsfeld's speech. Something tells me FDR was probably not a huge fan of Lindbergh's stance vis-a-vis Nazi Germany, Hitler and WWII. Rumsfeld has made a lot of mistakes, but your RDS (Rumsfeld Derangement Syndrome) is warping your mind into the alternate reality in which, apparently, no past public figure who we respect today ever played politics, or had opponents or thought he was right and other people were wrong and was willing to say that. Everyone else in history has suddenly become a saint just so that you'd be that miuch more able to paint Rumseld as the devil incarnate, a buffoon, or both. It's getting old, real fast. Posted by: Anon at September 10, 2006 08:58 PM \| Permalink to this comment Since I am disposed to regard Americans whose intellectual world revolves around Europe as either a menace or a nuisance -- depending largely on whether they hold high public office or not -- I welcome evidence suggesting, however tentatively, that Greg is not one of them. Certainly a contrast of Sec. Rumsfeld with Franklin Roosevelt is a more promising tack than a comparison of Rumsfeld with Adolf Hitler. Posted by: Zathras at September 10, 2006 09:51 PM \| Permalink to this comment http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=16166 'The task of defeating Hitler may be long and arduous. There are a few appeasers and Nazi sympathizers who say it cannot be done. They even ask me to negotiate with Hitler—to pray for crumbs from his victorious table. They do, in fact, ask me to become the modern Benedict Arnold and betray all that I hold dear- my devotion to our freedom—to our churches—to our country. This course I have rejected—I reject it again.' I googled 'Franklin Roosevelt Nazi sympathizers'. The above was the first hit. Posted by: David Tomlin at September 10, 2006 11:31 PM \| Permalink to this comment Unlike Rumsfeld, FDR doesn't stoop to divisive rhetoric such as "(b)ut some seem not to have learned history's lessons" How is that divisive? Are you telling me you've never met a single person who doesn't know anything about history and is clueless about the threat we face? It should also be noted that 1944 Republican Presidential candidate Thomas Dewey wanted to use the sneak attack on Pear Harbor as an issue in the election. George Marshall asked him not to because it would jeopardize our ability to intercept Japanese communications. So Dewey refrained from bringing it up. I wish the Democrats were capable of putting the national interest above short term political gain like that. They would regain a lot of credibility. Posted by: andrew at September 11, 2006 01:16 AM \| Permalink to this comment Anon, During World War 2, American progressives learned that American right-wingers in the Republican Party would always, when threatened, revert to protecting and promoting fascism. Posted by: NeoDude at September 11, 2006 03:02 AM \| Permalink to this comment Let's keep the key difference in mind, shall we, kiddies? As Djerejian detailed in his post "Deconstructing Rummy" -- complete with protracted passages frrom Rumsfeld's speech -- Rummy said flatly that everyone who says we're fighting in the WRONG PLACE by invading Iraq, or by using the WRONG STRATEGIES in our war there, or by using counterproductive torture techniques, is really in favor of our not fighting the Islamic Fascist movement at all. Not quite what FDR was saying: he never said that the people who wanted him to open up a second front (prematurely) were actually Nazi sympathizers. There have never been more than a miniscule number of people in this country who wanted us to surrender to the Islamofascists; for Rumsfeld to deliberately exaggerate their number as part of this administration's increasingly frantic efforts to cover its ass for its glaring strategic blunders is a fucking outrage. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 11, 2006 06:47 PM \| Permalink to this comment Actually, if you want a more accurate historical analogy to Rummy's nauseating speech, it's as though Chamberlain and Churchill had insisted that anyone who wanted to evacuate the British troops from Dunkirk -- instead of having them fight uselessly to the death -- was really in favor of surrendering to the Nazis. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 11, 2006 06:51 PM \| Permalink to this comment Its apparent that Gregs detractors here are the only intelligent contributors to this site Posted by: pogue mahone at September 11, 2006 07:22 PM \| Permalink to this comment Actually, what's extremely apparent here is that some of Greg's detractors can't spell. (Incidentally, a confession of ignorance on my part: "Pogue Mahone" is such an unusual name that I assumed it had to be a real name rather than a pseudonym. Turns out that it's the name of an Irish rock band, further amplifying my suspicions that our own P.M. is a teenager -- and not a very bright one at that.) Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at September 11, 2006 10:14 PM \| Permalink to this comment		About Belgravia Dispatch Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries Lunch w/ the FT... Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search Search this site: The News Financial Times New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books American Scholar LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner Wine Terroirs The Burgundy Report Richard Kelley Andrew Jefford Archives Browse Archives Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2010 Belgravia Dispatch