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

Wade Vierheller Professor Combs English ccc 27 September 2012 let Us? No, break it a Rest Summary and Critique George F. will is a Pulitzer-Prize writer and an editor for Newsweek. He is well-known for his strong conservative semipolitical commentary. He discusses the story of inaugural address Addresses and how they reflect the way the estate has changed finishedout the old age. He shows out a number of differences over some(prenominal)(prenominal) as curse structure, tone, and topics. For example, he cites the numbering of excogitates.He mentions George chapiters second article of faith of his address, which was 87 words. On the one hand, I was summoned by my rural, whose voice I can never hear merely with care and love, from a retreat 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 to a greater extent necessary as well as much de ar to me by the addition of habit to inclination, and of ordinary interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by age.Back then, the culture was much different, as most people learned to read were by difficult literature 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 capital of Nebraska through Wilson, 34 since Wilson, 25. pass on believes that the common shortening of sentences reflects, in part, a change in nature of Inaugural Addresses. He refers to Teddy Roosevelt who called the judicature a bully pulpit. Later addresses take up had an bonus to tell Americans how to be swallow with phrases such as The completely thing we have to fear and Ask non A more popular phrase which was employ by Kennedy and Nixon was Let us, which according to Will means, For Petes sake, pull up your socks and shape up. The surfeit of the Inaugural Addresses has also changed. George Washington had to be much more modest, speaking approximately his personal problems and as much as he would like to rest, his country was calling him.In the beginning with Washington, the issue was that he would be able to turn the presidency into another 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 increase carrys how the country has grown over the many years. though Will is happy that we do not have to talk about the issues of the past anymore, he does not like the shortening of sentences and how electric chairs have become more like preachers.He shows appreciation of Washingtons unobtrusiveness despite the am ount of praise he was showered with, but understands how there were different problems during that time. Most of what Will says is plump for up with some strong points, using literal information from past people such as Cleveland, Garfield, and Teddy Roosevelt. This greatly backs up his claims, making them voteless 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 unfeigned there has been a major change in literature over the years. Personally, I had some bustle keeping up with the incredibly long sentence made by George Washington. Its interesting 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 does no t seem to have any major ostracise effect on society, unless Wills avowal 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 split of Washingtons address or Lincolns address (Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this might scourge of war whitethorn speedily pass away With malice toward none, with brotherly love 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 withstand with him here. At least in the beginning, its never been the Presidents demarcation to tell us how to behave.It is true that he is our leader, but his part in conduct the country is taking care of political bailiwicks such as federal law and diplomatic troubles. other very interesting matter he brings up is the drastic change in subject mat ter 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 operative to solve them. This gives us drive and displays our strength and motivation. In his article, Will has done a good job of backing up his opinions with strong factual information. magic spell I do not completely agree with him, Im able to understand and reckon 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. .