Summary and Critique of George F. Will’s View on Inaugural Addresses

Wade Vierheller Professor Combs slope 300 27 September 2012 Let Us? No, Give it a Rest Summary and Critique George F. forget is a Pulitzer-Prize writer and an editor program for Newsweek. He is well-known for his tight conservative political commentary. He discusses the fib of world-class Addresses and how they reflect the way the country has changed finished proscribed the years. He points out a number of differences such as sentence structure, t wiz, and topics. For example, he cites the numbering of haggle.He mentions George Washingtons second sentence of his address, which was 87 words. On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never memorize but with veneration and love, from a crawfish out which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining yearsa retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to incli gr ound, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by succession.Back then, the kitchen-gardening was much distinct, as most people learned to read were through difficult literary productions such as Pilgrims Progress and the king James Bible. Herbert Stein, who for 60 years was an economist and connoisseur of Americans political culture, discovered that the average number of words per sentence for inaugural Addresses has steadily decreased from Washington through Buchanan the average number of words per sentence was 44 from Lincoln through Wilson, 34 since Wilson, 25. allow believes that the normal shortening of sentences reflects, in disrupt, a change in nature of initiatory Addresses. He refers to shift key Roosevelt who called the administration a bully pulpit. Later addresses eat up had an incentive to tell Americans how to be buzz off with phrases such as The only social occasion we have to fear and Ask non A more frequent p hrase which was used by Kennedy and Nixon was Let us, which according to Will means, For Petes sake, pull up your socks and shape up. The content of the Inaugural Addresses has similarly changed. George Washington had to be much more modest, speaking about his face-to-face bothers and as much as he would like to rest, his country was occupational group him.In the beginning with Washington, the issue was that he would be able to turn the presidency into anformer(a) monarchy. Around the time of Cleveland and Garfield, a major issue was polygamy. During the time of Monroe, the issue was coastal fortifications. As of today, these are no longer on the list of major issues. This progression shows how the country has grown over the many another(prenominal) years. Though Will is happy that we do not have to blab out about the issues of the past anymore, he does not like the shortening of sentences and how Presidents have become more like preachers.He shows appreciation of Washingtons timidity despite the amount of praise he was showered with, but understands how there were different problems during that time. Most of what Will says is backed up with some strong points, utilise real information from past people such as Cleveland, Garfield, and Teddy Roosevelt. This greatly backs up his claims, making them hard to argue against. He makes strong arguments that clearly show how there has been quite a change passim the history of the Inaugural Addresses. A significant point he brings up is the decrease in the word count per sentence over the years.Its true there has been a major change in literature over the years. Personally, I had some trouble keeping up with the fabulously long sentence made by George Washington. Its evoke how he partly blames it for the change in the nature of Inaugural Addresses. Im not sure if I see much connection between the two. Also, though shorter sentences shows our reading mental muscles are weaker than our ancestors, but this doe s not calculate to have any major negative effect on society, unless Wills statement about the changing in Inaugural Addresses in coordination with shortening of sentences is true.This leads us to another point about the context of Inaugural Addresses. Looking at the parts of Washingtons address or Lincolns address (Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this might scourge of war may speedily pass international With malice toward none, with charity for all), they show hope and love in their speeches. When looking at later ones, theyve become much more preach-y. For Will, this does not seem to be a good adjustment, and I have to checker with him here. At least in the beginning, its never been the Presidents job to tell us how to behave.It is true that he is our leader, but his part in leading the country is taking care of political matters such as federal law and diplomatic troubles. Another very interesting matter he brings up is the drastic change in adequate to(p) matte r from speech to speech. With Washington, it was the fear of monarchy. For Monroe, it was coastal fortifications. For Lincoln, it was slavery. For Garfield and Cleveland, it was polygamy. Throughout the years, the severity of the nations problems has declined. Its really something to be proud about. It shows that despite the other reasons Will has pointed out, this country has grown for the better.Well always have problems and well keep workings to solve them. This gives us drive and displays our strength and motivation. In his article, Will has do a good job of backing up his opinions with strong factual information. While I do not completely agree with him, Im able to understand and respect his views. Really the only problem I have with the paper is the assumption on how the shortening of sentences reflects a change in the nature of Inaugural Addresses, because I cant understand how that exactly works.Works Cited Will, George F. Let Us? No, Give it a Rest. Newsweek 22 Jan. 2001 64. Print. .