Can we compare the 9/11 terrorists to the rioters of January 6, 2021? That is what former President George W. Bush did in
his speech yesterday, September 11, 2021, at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the site where Flight 93 crashed.
As a former Republican president, his chastisement of the January 6 rioters carries more weight than anything that President Joe Biden, a Democrat, could possibly say. It’s not just because of what he said, but the fact that it was he, not someone else, who said it. It was neither his proof or reasoning; no, it was his personal
ethos that carried his point.
Of all the many 9/11 tributes yesterday, Bush’s brief speech attracted the most attention. Bush honored the passengers of Flight 93, praised the durable American spirit, and contrasted the wickedness of the 9/11 terrorists against what he described as the basic goodness of Americans. He also criticized the mob that attacked the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021: he asserted that “the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within.
Millennia ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle said that the purpose of a ceremonial speech is honor. Indeed, Bush honored the heroes of 9/11 and praised the United States’ unity and resilience. So, he didn’t just praise the passengers on Flight 93. He also praised the United States’ people:
“In those fateful hours, we learned other lessons as well. We saw that Americans were vulnerable, but not fragile - that they possess a core of strength that survives the worst that life can bring. We learned that bravery is more common than we imagined, emerging with sudden splendor in the face of death. We vividly felt how every hour with our loved ones was a temporary and holy gift. And we found that even the longest days end.”
Bush then gave a lesson. Ceremonial speakers throughout history have reached beyond the day’s immediate topic to draw a larger lesson. They can pass on the life lessons that the honored people can teach. Ceremonial speakers might suggest that we, today, should pursue the same goals as the persons being honored. Modern-day ceremonial speakers from Hillary Clinton to John McCain have done exactly that.
In this case, Bush compared the horrors of 9/11 against the misdeeds of the United States’ own domestic terrorists of today:
“And we have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within. There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit. And it is our continuing duty to confront them.”
Let us unpack the similarities. The Muslim terrorists of 9/11 showed “disdain for pluralism,” defying their own religion’s beliefs in the process. Likewise, America’s right wing today, with its narrow view of Christianity, disdain for minorities and immigrants, and resistance to cultural change, also shows “disdain for pluralism.” By that, Bush meant that terrorists respect no one’s ideas except their own. The “disregard for human life” and “determination to defile national symbols” are also unmistakable. The 9/11 terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, two symbols of American greatness. The January 6 terrorists ransacked the United States Capitol and threatened to murder government officials. Bush’s choice of words strikes one’s attention: the two groups of terrorists “defiled” American symbols.
Bush nevertheless acknowledged that our domestic terrorists and the 9/11 terrorists placed themselves at opposite ideological poles: “little cultural overlap,” Bush said. American conservatives despise Muslim radicals with a passion. That does not negate the many features that they share. Using parallel language to drive the point home, Bush compared “violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home.” He described both groups as “children of the same foul spirit.”
Critically, Bush insisted that “it is our duty to confront them.”
We all immediately knew that the unnamed domestic terrorists to which Bush alluded were, in fact, the right-wing rioters who attacked the United States Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Despite all the previous hype, no one thought he was talking about the Portland, Oregon riots or the George Floyd protests. No one thought that he was talking about anti-fascist demonstrators. Media as distinct as the right-wing Breitbart.com, the mainstream
USA Today, and the liberal website
Axios all acknowledged that Bush was criticizing the January 6 Capitol rioters. For example,
Breitbart’s Charlie Spiering wrote, “The former president did not specifically name the January 6th protests but alluded to the American citizens who stormed Capitol Hill to protest the 2020 election.” Yet, Bush never mentioned January 6. He never mentioned the Capitol riots. His vague comments about a “foul spirit” and defilement of “national symbols” were enough for all of us, conservative and liberal alike, to know, almost instinctively, what he meant. Maybe Bush’s simple phrases awakened people’s sleeping consciences. Maybe the guilt and worry about January 6 only needed the simplest wake-up call.
And, yes, Bush said that called on Americans to confront terrorists of both ilks. Unlike policy speakers, ceremonial speakers rarely explain what they think should be done. All that Bush said about policy was, “And it is our continuing duty to confront them.” One vague sentence. How should we confront them? He didn’t say. He didn’t need to say. The details can come later. The important thing is that we need to recognize that the January 6 rioters, the people who encouraged them, and the people who make excuses for them, are the United States of America’s enemies. The policy specifics don’t matter – yet. What matters is to acknowledge the threat. We cannot solve a problem until we acknowledge the need to challenge it. Bush himself was the president who led the United States through the horrors of 9/11. Interestingly, although he himself is a conservative Republican, Bush did not call on the insurrectionists to repent and reform. He did not ask them to rejoin traditional conservativism. His simple statement implied, among other things, that good people need to face evil down.
Bush expressed so much meaning in a few simple sentences. I never thought much of Bush’s work as president. He left the United States’ economy and foreign policy in shambles. At the same time, however, with his political ambitions already fulfilled, he now seems to feel free to express his conscience and to say positive things.
Like many ceremonial speakers, Bush drew a lesson for the present day. That lesson was harsher than what one might have expected. Perhaps members of America’s right wing took offense. The fact that a conservative Republican, not some left-wing liberal, criticized them carried a special sting. Bush’s words carries more weight precisely because of who he is.
Research Note: The ancient term for a ceremonial speech is “epideictic.” An epideictic speech, literally, is a speech that “shows forth.” It shows the speaker’s eloquence while praising honorable deeds. Although researchers usually think of epideictic speech as a conservative genre, liberals also give epideictic speeches. I’ve written a number of academic papers about epideictic speech; click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above to see some of them.
