OP-ED: Two Speeches: Similar in Message, Equally Inadequate
In perhaps his largest milestone as president yet, Donald Trump announced Sunday, October 27, that the United States military services successfully completed an operation that killed the founder of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. The speech quickly drew a comparison of Barack Obama’s announcement of the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in 2011. However, it would be an extreme oversimplification to say that one speech is superior to the other. Both are painfully inadequate, and that is exactly why Donald Trump is our president today.
On the evening of May 2, 2011, then-president Barack Obama stood in the same spot Trump stood this week and announced the death of Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the September 11 attacks, as well as uncountable tragedies carried out by Al Qaeda. As he addressed the nation, Obama kept it to the facts. Once he did give the details in an almost robotic tone, he broadly spoke on the unification of the country post-9/11 and the bravery of the American people during one of the darkest times in history.
There are certainly advantages to keeping the speech majorly fact-based, however many of the soldiers and military families who so willingly put their lives on the line for this country felt as though they were discredited. While there’s no way to properly begin to thank the millions of men and women for their time, energy, and livelihoods, it certainly deserves acknowledgment.
Obama did not attempt. Instead, he vaguely stated, “Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort.” It may sound nice on the ears, but it’s no shocker that this was not taken well by the millions of American soldiers and military families across the nation. Many also felt as though Obama understated the severity of the terrorist leader’s work and did not give proper honoring of those who fought against it.
About eight and a half years later, Trump’s speech was just as full of inadequacies, but with a contrasting message. While most presidents, Obama included, would have remained focused on the facts, Trump’s speech, in true fashion, was full of theatrics. The use of phrases like, “He died like a dog,” and “whimpering and crying and screaming,” among many other graphic descriptions, is pretty uncomfortable rhetoric compared to that of past presidents on similar matters.
Is this surprising? No. Disappointing? Perhaps. However, just like how Obama was catering to an audience when he spoke, Trump certainly is too. In fact, our current president’s speech is a response to our former president’s way of speaking. All those who were offended by the rhetoric Obama used are precisely those who ended up voting for Trump in 2016, meaning that Trump is only catering to his fanbase by speaking the way he does.
Neither president’s way of speaking is right. On a spectrum, each are such an extreme, and it doesn’t have to be an either-or. There’s a way to address the nation about a military operation without giving grotesque and inappropriate details, and also by giving our soldiers the recognition they deserve. It’s not an impossible task, but the growing political divide in the country makes it so Trump must do the polar opposite of what Obama did, in order to appeal to his voters.
The rhetoric our leaders use is incredibly important, and it’s what sets the trajectory for American political culture. While the killing of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is a historic moment for the United States, the way in which it is announced is just as noteworthy. Potentially, the speech given is even more influential than the event itself.
By Annie Levy