The inaugural address of U.S. presidents is symbolic of the moments of political life of this country. They mark the transition from one presidency to another or the re-nomination of a president, in a particular mix of content. They celebrate the greatness of America and its democratic institutions to a specific situation that requires the speech to address a particular topic. It is understandable that there is immediately a certain tension between epideictic speeches of praise and contemplation required by the context and political discourse involving division and is often ruptured. The inaugural address of U.S. presidents is steeped in paradox. Sometimes consensual, and sometimes written in reaction to the previous mandate, they handle themes and literary techniques in a common situation with a different cognitive and ideological framework.
[...] In general, this first part is surprising when compared to President Bush's first speech or the second term inauguration speeches of U.S. presidents. The first part of the speech of 2005 seems to focus exclusively on foreign policy and adopts a serious tone that opposes traditional epideictic speeches. The record on domestic policy is currently ignored (unlike traditional re-inauguration speeches dealing with this in the first part) and so it seems that the international context is the priority. In addition, the feeling that this is not directly to the Americans that this part is intended is troubling. [...]
[...] To test these hypotheses, we will address two tests: the first will focus on the inauguration speech of President Bush in 2001 while the second will focus on the speech of 2005 with particular interest on what differentiates the speech of the first .For this, we will use a number of concepts of political science applied to the specific context of the United States and the constant references to the previous inaugural speeches of U.S. presidents. Before turning to the analysis of discourse as such, it seems important to revisit the circumstances of the election of George W Bush to the presidency of the United States in 2000. [...]
[...] It seems that from the line 91 to line 101, it is the president being expressed in his role as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. After paying tribute to American citizens killed in action around the figure of the representing the president as the embodiment of the entire nation (line 94/95), he exhorts young Americans in order to mobilize their patriotism by encouraging them to commit to their country (lines 98 to 101). This lack of clarity manifest in the address is again voluntary He seems implicitly push young Americans to join the army with soldiers whose face is glorified in lines 97/98. [...]
[...] It is in a particular context that George Bush delivered his first inaugural address, on January The first speech by President Bush in 2001 is paradoxical, it takes place in a period of uncertainty and doubt regarding the U.S. electoral system and its institutions, even though one of the characteristics of the inaugural address is the celebration of the functioning and stability of institutions and the system in general.The inaugural speech of U.S. presidents have no established forms or length. [...]
[...] This principle is in the tradition of populist inaugural speeches of the second half of the twentieth century, based on the people's power to judge his actions while having built the analytical framework necessary for the proper appreciation of his presidential actions. The theme of unity in division is developed in line 135 to line 143. If the word "unity" is repeated a few times in this passage (the 141), the image of this cohesion is also held in this part. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee