From Henry V to "Bring 'em on!"

Rhetorical Questions
by Marian Kester Coombs
March 2003 - March 2006

"History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." A great line -- crafted by Karl Marx from a concept he had borrowed from G.W.F. Hegel. Marx knew a great line when he wrote one:

"A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of Communism." "Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. Stirring words: words that did change the world, for good or ill.

In "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" Marx goes on to note how at every historical juncture, people "anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle cries and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honoured disguise and this borrowed language."

In other words, political rhetoric must not only stir the hearts of its listeners but forge a connection in their minds between an uncertain present and the hallowed deeds and revered figures of the past. Even though one cannot step into the same river of History twice, most men find heartening the idea that there is nothing new under the sun, that the Golden Age can come around again on the Great Wheel or be reborn, phoenix-like.

Our own American Revolution is unthinkable without its appeal to the glories of the Roman republic and the Greek city-state. From statues of George Washington wearing a toga to the pen name "Cato" adopted by one rebel scribe, the Novus Ordo Seclorum draped itself in ancient garb and phrases.

The art of rhetoric, too, inspired the statesmen and soldiers of the Revolution at every turn. Patrick Henry's brilliant speech to the Second Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775, still detonates across the centuries with much of the power it unfurled in its own day:

"Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"

The Committees of Correspondence were set up to spread and amplify such oratorical inspiration. The vivid imagery of Thomas Paine's Common Sense and the lapidary eloquence of the Continental Congress's debates swayed vitally needed leadership into the revolutionary camp. And it is hard to overestimate the impact of Paine's phrase "summer soldiers and sunshine patriots" upon the survival of Washington's decrepit army during the fateful winter of 1776.

Oratory is not dead, of course. Today we have "the Axis of Evil," intended to be actionable rhetoric, along with "moral clarity," as befits the "indispensable nation" poised to take charge at "the end of history." That first axis has even begotten another, the "Axis of Weasels," to designate our erstwhile allies, the Germans and French (who are called "surrender monkeys" for good measure).

We also have the "coalition of the willing," those who grasp that "If you're not with us, you're against us." Perhaps most inspired and inspiring of all was the Newsweek cover that dubbed Kim Jong-Il "Dr. Evil" -- you know, equating the North Korean dictator with that villain in the immortal Austin Powers movies. As for those who dare to be against us, "Bring 'em on!"

In his book The Imagination of an Insurrection, historian William Irwin Thompson wrote that after the Dublin Rising of Easter 1916, "the deaths of the poets before the firing squad were all gesture, all image. But ... it is precisely this gesture that lingers as a social, cultural and political reality. ... The consequences of an event take place in the mind, and the mind holds on best to images."

That is, people do things because they imagine them beautiful. Therefore they who compose the music, the drama, the story, the poetry of a course of action wield immense power.

The difference between great and debased rhetoric is that the great doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth. Henry V's speech to the English at Agincourt fired them to rout an army of pursuers many times their number, and six hundred years later, we do indeed still "think ourselves accursed we were not there" upon that St. Crispin's Day.

Six years from now, who will be "with us or against us"?

II.

"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.'" -- George W. Bush, February 21, 2006.

This spontaneous, unscripted bit of rhetoric spoke worlds about the world President Bush is living in. It was a portentous moment: the mask of "patriotic American" dropped away, revealing the globalist Man Without a Country beneath.

In his blustering outburst, Bush impugned the multiculturalist political correctness of any who dared criticize his administration's rubberstamping of the Dubai-owned company's port takeover. This was an odd stance from someone who routinely exploits America First sentiment at election time. In his kneejerk defense of a policy he didn't even know about until he saw it in the paper, Bush reflexively attacked critics of the deal from the left -- or rather, from the post-national POV he actually, secretly holds.

One would like to say to him, "Mr. Bush, it isn't hard to step up and explain why an Arab company is 'held to a different [do you mean higher?] standard' than a 'Great British' one. Dubai is an Arab Muslim country. Our declared enemies and the authors of the Sept. 11 attack are 100% Muslim and almost 100% Arab. No 'Great British' nationals -- except Muslim ones like Richard Reid -- are responsible for attacks on Americans; in fact, Great Britain is your only real ally in the war on Iraq, for better or worse."

Then we were subjected to "conservative" pundits getting indignant about the "Islamophobia" of the port deal's critics. A typical misleading accusation -- "fear of Islam." Too right: We have an irrational fear of the wonderful Muslim faith because we're just dumb like that. What would these pundits call the Islamic world's feelings about the West? How do you say "homicidal rage, resentment and hatred of America" in pretentious Greek?

Can one imagine Harry Truman telling people to shut up about Pyongyang buying auto plants in Michigan during the Korean War? Or Lyndon Johnson brushing aside criticism of Hanoi buying a controlling interest in the U.S. fishing fleet during the Vietnam War? "It's nothing personal, it's just business" is a motto worthy of the Mafia, not a national leader.

But okay, if it's Islamophobic to even notice who owns our ports, or canals or factories or railway system or anything else, then why in the world are Americans being sent to die for their country? This country, a contemptible fiction to the likes of Bush, is where we live. If we lose it, we lose our existence along with it. The locust-caste to which Bush belongs can rise in the air with great whirring and relocate to the next host, but people who are indispensable to nations cannot, and do not wish to. So when a supposed leader, especially one who so cavalierly brought bloody war down on our heads, has the cheap effrontery to dismiss the well-founded security concerns of real Americans ... well, to quote Auntie Em, "being a Christian woman, I just can't say it."