"We carry on because as Americans we do not give in to fear. Ever," he says, heavily implying a parallel to the current struggle against the ISIS. In fact, this oratory comes directly after yesterday's announcement to launch a new misson against Islamist regimes in Irag and Syria.
In the past, the president's 9/11 memorials seem to be more focused on the victims of the attack rather than its impact as a country as a whole:
Obama's older speeches are a much clearer homage to the determination and perserverence that carried the country out of momentary bleakness, whereas his latest speech reflects on the event in a much more distant, analytical manner.
Is this evolution indicative of a changing perspective of 9/11? Or does Obama simply utilize speeches as rationalization for his current agenda?
Is this evolution indicative of a changing perspective of 9/11? Or does Obama simply utilize speeches as rationalization for his current agenda?
2 comments:
My opinion on this is determined by the connotation of "reflect." Reflect, to me, means taking what you know now about the situation, and using that to understand/remember the past and make sense of it. What we "know now," then, changes every year, based on what happened throughout the year and the context of what we're living in currently. Therefore, I think that while his speeches do fit his "current agenda," they mainly change with the times to reflect on 9/11 appropriately in the context of that year.
The President is definitely trying to sell his new agenda—it's not a coincidence that he hints to the ISIL issue right after yesterday's speech. Reminding people of 9/11 is probably the most effective way to rally the public behind a more involvement in Syria and Iraq. But the tone shift you mention is also very interesting. I can't imagine that it's due to increasing apathy—9/11 is still coming up all the time in the discussions about terrorism and Islamist groups. And remember, we'll #neverforget. Maybe the President is making less "emotional" comments because his top priority for this speech wasn't to boost approval ratings, but like you said, "rationalize his current agenda"?
Post a Comment