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

Wade Vierheller Professor Combs English 300 27 September 2012 ‘Let Us’†¦? No, Give 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 political commentary. He discusses the history of Inaugural Addresses and how they reflect the way the country has changed throughout the years. He points out a number of differences such as sentence structure, tone, and topics. For example, he cites the numbering of words.He mentions George Washington’s second sentence of his address, which was 87 words. On the one hand, I was summoned by my country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration 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 years–a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me by the addition of habit to inclin ation, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time.Back then, the culture was much different, as most people learned to read were through difficult literature such as Pilgrim’s Progress and the King James Bible. Herbert Stein, â€Å"who for 60 years was an economist and connoisseur of American’s political culture,† discovered that the average number of words per sentence for Inaugural Addresses has steadily decreased: â€Å"from Washington through Buchanan the average number of words per sentence was 44; from Lincoln through Wilson, 34; since Wilson, 25. † Will believes that â€Å"the general shortening of sentences reflects, in part, a change in nature of Inaugural Addresses. He refers to Teddy Roosevelt who called the presidency â€Å"a bully pulpit. † Later addresses have had an incentive to tell Americans how to behave with phrases such as â€Å"The only thing we have to fear†¦Ã¢â‚¬  and †Å"Ask not†¦Ã¢â‚¬  A more popular phrase which was used by Kennedy and Nixon was â€Å"Let us†¦,† which according to Will means, â€Å"For Pete’s sake, pull up your socks and shape up. † The content of the Inaugural Addresses has also changed. George Washington had to be much more modest, speaking about 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 progression shows 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 Presidents have become more like preachers.He sho ws appreciation of Washington’s modesty 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, using factual 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 throughout the history of the Inaugural Addresses. A significant point he brings up is the decrease in the word count per sentence over the years.It’s true there has been a major change in literature over the years. Personally, I had some trouble keeping up with the incredibly long sentence made by George Washington. It’s interesting how he partly blames it for the â€Å"change in the nature of Inaugural Addresses. † I’m not sure if I see much connection between the two. Also, though shorter sente nces shows our reading mental muscles are weaker than our ancestors’, but this does not seem to have any major negative effect on society, unless Will’s 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 Washington’s address or Lincoln’s address (â€Å"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this might scourge of war may speedily pass away†¦ With malice toward none, with charity for all†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ), they show hope and love in their speeches. When looking at later ones, they’ve become much more preach-y. For Will, this does not seem to be a good adjustment, and I have to agree with him here. At least in the beginning, it’s never been the President’s 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 politica l matters such as federal law and diplomatic troubles. Another very interesting matter he brings up is the drastic change in subject matter 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 nation’s problems has declined. It’s really something to be proud about. It shows that despite the other reasons Will has pointed out, this country has grown for the better.We’ll always have problems and we’ll keep working 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. While I do not completely agree with him, I’m 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 can’t understand how that exactly works.Works Cited Will, George F. â€Å"‘Let Us’†¦? No, Give it a Rest. † Newsweek 22 Jan. 2001: 64. Print. .