A Dire Lesson Not Yet Learned: Robert Byrd’s Cautions and Their Relevance Today in “The Arrogance of Power”

By Jordan Smith

WRI 111: Writing Seminar

To read Student Editor Yushuo Wang’s comments on the writing moves found in this essay, click on or hover over the footnotes within the text.

Revised Submission: Genre Innovation Final Draft

A Dire Lesson Not Yet Learned: Robert Byrd’s Cautions and Their Relevance Today in “The Arrogance of Power”

Delivered on March 19th, 2003, Senator Robert Byrd took to the Senate floor to address President Bush’s announcement of the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Merely six months post-9/11, the largest terrorist attack carried out on United States soil, President Bush had since declared the “War on Terror” and the hunt to capture those responsible for carrying out the attack. While a war on the general notion of “terrorism” is vague, President Bush had announced the invasion of Iraq in order to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism and disarm Iraq of their alleged weapons of mass destruction. ¹This invasion, and the non-diplomatic measures taken by the government are denounced by Byrd, as he looks to persuade members of the Senate and the larger United States population that the country was entering into a misguided and avoidable war. Looking to preserve the liberties and values the nation was founded upon, Byrd emphasizes both the national and global consequences of this invasion. More specifically, at a time in which vengeance for all American lives lost was at the forefront of the United States’ mentality, Byrd’s speech urging for caution, reason, and peaceful diplomacy represents the danger inherent in a blind pursuit of justice. ²

Oftentimes, patriotism is conflated with a blind pursuit of unwavering faith in the government and an inherent devotion to its decisions. However, Byrd is a prime example of a patriot whose life has been devoted to this country, having both the right and merit to question it. Even today, there is a system of thinking ingrained in our society that those who disagree with the government are seen as anti-American. Protestors, peacefully exercising their right to free speech, are perceived as radicals. Individuals who use their platforms and influence to question the decision-making of the government are told to minimize their political views and “stay in their lane”. ⁵Byrd counters this system of thinking, arguing that those who care and fear for the future of the nation are in fact the most patriotic, as they are the ones committed to the ideals the country has been founded upon. ⁶

He continues that he now “weeps for [his] country,” and fears that internationally “our friends mistrust us; our word is disputed; our intentions are questioned” (1). The tragedy of 9/11 brought about a new wave of national unity; the country found itself grieving and recovering as one united front. The repetition of the word “our” alludes to this unity, and how the actions of the government are placing the United States and its collective citizens in a negative and dangerous light internationally. He suggests that this one-track mindset looking to avenge both the country’s reputation and lives lost will place all citizens in jeopardy.

After 9/11, general heightened states of fear, targeted at an unknown enemy, were widespread throughout the country. Byrd makes a point of noting that the true enemy is the mentality of terrorists trying to “stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures” (2). He pinpoints this threat as the direct enemy that needs to be countered and leans into the uncertainty of this as a force to counter, labeling it as a “shadowy entity with many faces” (2). By identifying this multifaceted mentality as the enemy, Byrd is able to denounce the targeted actions of President Bush, which he describes as “directing all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers toward a tangible villain” (3). He emphasizes that this solution is over-simplified, glossing over the intricacies of the mentality of terrorism directed toward the US, in order to quell fears of another attack. Byrd raises his volume when bringing up Saddam Hussein, pausing and emphasizing the phrase “And villain he is” (3). This emotional statement once again allows Byrd to highlight that he is not looking to skirt any retribution for the loss of life in the 9/11 attacks, but rather that Hussein “is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war” (3). ⁷By pinpointing the real enemy, Byrd emphasizes that this blind mission for vengeance will plunge the United States into a greater state of jeopardy, and put lives, both domestically and internationally, at risk.

At one of his most emotional moments of the speech, Byrd asks a series of rhetorical questions to his audience. He questions the state of the country, “my country, your country, our country” (4). ⁸ In almost a pleading sense, Byrd asks his audience to take a holistic look at the country—a country comprised of individual citizens and livelihoods—and force each person to assume some form of responsibility for what will happen in Iraq. He questions when the country became one that “ignores and berates our friends,” and “abandons diplomatic efforts,” effectively causing the audience to note how the entire international diplomatic order has been undermined with the actions of the United States government (4). However, at the pinnacle of this statement he denounces these actions as the “turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy” (4). With the word “cries,” Byrd looks and points to the sky and utters this word with an anger that had not been present in his previous statements. ⁹This anger represents how the decisions of the United States government represent an abandonment of those who need diplomacy and reasoning most, and a jeopardization of all lives in the countries whose pleas for liberty the United States chooses to ignore.

(Stop at 2:10).

The wavering voice of Byrd and the sincerity of his message is able to resonate across the Senate floor the same way it resonates across listeners today. The state of the country, the betrayal of its ideals, and the abandonment of diplomacy in the face of violence and threats linger now as it did twenty years ago. Byrd notes the urgency of preserving democracy and diplomacy in times of mounting tensions as it is these pillars are immediately abandoned. He warns about the dangers that lie ahead when this occurs, an eerie occurrence as the United States’ decision has set a dangerous precedent of forsaking values of democracy in times of conflict, a trend still being seen two decades later. Whether that be inciting and allowing an insurrection at the Capitol building to occur, engaging with heightened violence and aggression toward peaceful protests, or abandoning countries as they are invaded and threatened by illiberalism, both internally and externally the United States has seen the effects of democratic backsliding, just as Byrd predicted. ¹⁰

(Stop at 3:50).

Byrd then takes a long pause before concluding with the statement, “and for the security of our homeland” (5). This statement once again emphasizes that he is primarily looking to continue to defend his country and is not taking an anti-American approach. However, this statement simultaneously weighs all the people living in Iraq against the security of our nation. He forces the question: Will the notion of our relative safety be at the cost of these innocent’s lives? Or will this invasion and disregard for innocent civilians ultimately endanger our national security to a greater extent? Byrd paints a bleak image of the future of the United States as he is hoping minimal lives are uprooted and lost on account of this decision.

As Byrd directly addresses policymakers of the Senate, as well as the broader United States population, his fear for the future of the country radiates throughout his statements. His long, deliberate pauses between each sentence, punctuated by exclamations lamenting the invasion and actions of the United States government, generate a tone of urgency and concern, but also one in the hope of establishing proper discourse and preventing any further consequences. ¹²This speech, delivered over twenty years ago, echoes the dangers inherent in a blind pursuit of justice, and how easily the principles of democracy can be abandoned by a series of decisions. Byrd forces his listeners to look into the future, and from a 2022 perspective, we can see that his cautions should resonate evermore with both politicians and the civil population of this country. As the fight to preserve democracy continues to rage around the world, whether that be in Ukraine, Taiwan, or even in the Middle Eastern countries Byrd’s narrative began with, it is clear that the forsaking of democratic values is a feat not unique to the United State’s invasion of Iraq, but one that is being echoed in invasions, threats, and violence throughout the entire world. ¹³

While toeing the line between denouncing the vengeful actions of the United States while simultaneously respecting the massive loss of American life in the attacks, Byrd primarily seeks to draw attention to the pillars of diplomacy, respect, and liberty that are forsaken by this decision. As he prays for the soldiers being sent to Iraq, citizens of the United States find themselves in a similar position today, pleading for the safety of their fellow man called to defend our country’s principles, as well as innocent civilians abroad victimized by invasion, oppression, and violence. Byrd highlights the lives that will be destroyed in this blind quest for total revenge and security, and desperately urges policymakers to maintain the values and morals this country was founded upon. ¹⁴It is possible for readers to keep lingering on the article after reading by how Jordan wrapped it up from an ethical standpoint.

Original Submission: Genre Innovation Original Text

Preserving the Values of the Nation: Robert Byrd’s Cautions in “The Arrogance of Power”

Delivered on March 19th, 2003, Senator Robert Byrd took to the Senate floor to address President Bush’s announcement of the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Merely six months post-9/11, the largest terrorist attack carried out on United States soil, President Bush had since declared the “War on Terror” and the hunt to capture those responsible for carrying out the attack. While a war on the general notion of “terrorism” is vague, President Bush had announced the invasion of Iraq in order to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism and disarm Iraq of their alleged weapons of mass destruction. This invasion, and the non-diplomatic measures taken by the government are denounced by Byrd, as he looks to persuade members of the Senate and the larger United States population that the country was entering into a misguided and avoidable war. Looking to preserve the liberties and values the nation was founded upon, Byrd emphasizes both the national and global consequences of this invasion. More specifically, at a time in which vengeance for all American lives lost was at the forefront of the United States’ mentality, Byrd’s speech urging for caution, reason, and peaceful diplomacy represents the danger inherent in a blind pursuit of justice.

To establish credibility for his claims, Byrd had to maintain a patriotic stance, asserting he has not disregarded the lives lost on 9/11. He establishes himself as an American, one who chooses to “believe in this great and beautiful country,” and has lived his life inspired by the generations of Americans and their “sacrifice and strength,” alluding to those who perished in the terrorist attacks just six months ago (1). As he speaks, Byrd draws out each individual word, pausing after each sentence, generating a deliberate and meaningful tone. His message asserts that he is first and foremost an American who loves his country, but not with a blind devotion that doesn’t allow him to recognize its faults. He continues that he now “weeps for [his] country,” and fears that internationally “our friends mistrust us; our word is disputed; our intentions are questioned” (1). The tragedy of 9/11 brought about a new wave of national unity; the country found itself grieving and recovering as one united front. The repetition of the word “our” alludes to this unity, and how the actions of the government are placing the United States and its collective citizens in a negative and dangerous light internationally. He suggests that this one-track mindset looking to avenge both the country’s reputation and lives lost will place all citizens in jeopardy.

After 9/11, general heightened states of fear, targeted at an unknown enemy, were widespread throughout the country. Byrd makes a point of noting that the true enemy is the mentality of terrorists trying to “stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures” (2). He pinpoints this threat as the direct enemy that needs to be countered and leans into the uncertainty of this as a force to counter, labeling it as a “shadowy entity with many faces” (2). By identifying this multifaceted mentality as the enemy, Byrd is able to denounce the targeted actions of President Bush, which he describes as “directing all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers toward a tangible villain” (3). He emphasizes that this solution is over-simplified, glossing over the intricacies of the mentality of terrorism directed toward the US, in order to quell fears of another attack. Byrd raises his volume when bringing up Saddam Hussein, pausing and emphasizing the phrase “And villain he is” (3). This emotional statement once again allows Byrd to highlight that he is not looking to skirt any retribution for the loss of life in the 9/11 attacks, but rather that Hussein “is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war” (3). By pinpointing the real enemy, Byrd emphasizes that this blind mission for vengeance will plunge the United States into a greater state of jeopardy, and put lives, both domestically and internationally, at risk.

At one of his most emotional moments of the speech, Byrd asks a series of rhetorical questions to his audience. He questions the state of the country, “my country, your country, our country” (4). In almost a pleading sense, Byrd asks his audience to take a holistic look at the country—a country comprised of individual citizens and livelihoods—and force each person to assume some form of responsibility for what will happen in Iraq. He questions when the country became one that “ignores and berates our friends,” and “abandons diplomatic efforts,” effectively causing the audience to note how the entire international diplomatic order has been undermined by the actions of the United States government (4). However, at the pinnacle of this statement, he denounces these actions as the “turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy” (4). With the word “cries,” Byrd looks and points to the sky and utters this word with an anger that had not been present in his previous statements. This anger expresses how the decisions of the United States government are an ultimate abandonment of those who need diplomacy and reasoning most, and a jeopardization of all lives in the countries whose pleas for liberty the United States chooses to ignore.

Byrd concludes his speech with a plea for the safety of different groups of people. He repeats the phrase, saying he “will pray, pray, pray” that no harm is to come to those uprooted by this invasion, both domestically and internationally (5). The repetition adds a sense of urgency to his message, highlighting that there are so many in need of prayers and support due to the actions of the United States. He notes all those he worries about, “our troops, for the innocent civilians – women, children, babies, old and young, crippled, deformed sick – in Iraq” (5). He not only chooses to highlight the American troops at risk but also lists different Iraqi individuals who are seemingly forgotten due to the hunt for one Iraqi figure: Saddam Hussein. By emphasizing the varying identities of Iraqi citizens, ranging from old women to sick, infant children, he denounces the likely onslaught of islamophobia by giving a sense of all innocent people of Iraq who are being jeopardized by this decision. Byrd then takes a long pause before concluding with the statement, “and for the security of our homeland” (5). This statement once again emphasizes that he is primarily looking to continue to defend his country and is not taking an anti-American approach. However, this statement simultaneously weighs all the people living in Iraq against the security of our nation. He forces the question: Will the notion of our relative safety be at the cost of these innocent’s lives? Or will this invasion and disregard for innocent civilians ultimately endanger our national security to a greater extent? Byrd paints a bleak image of the future of the United States as he is hoping minimal lives are uprooted and lost on account of this decision.

As Byrd directly addresses policymakers of the Senate, as well as the broader United States population, his fear for the future of the country radiates throughout his statements. His long, deliberate pauses between each sentence, punctuated by exclamations lamenting the invasion and actions of the United States government, generate a tone of urgency and concern, but also one in the hope of establishing proper discourse and preventing any further consequences. Simultaneously toeing the line of denouncing the vengeful actions of the United States while respecting the massive loss of American life in the attacks, Byrd primarily seeks to draw attention to the pillars of diplomacy, respect, and liberty that are forsaken by this decision. Byrd highlights the lives that will be destroyed in this blind quest for total revenge and security, and desperately urges policymakers to maintain the values and morals this country was founded upon.

A Word from Jordan

When assigned the task of innovating a specific writing genre, I knew the writing that intrigued me the most were the speech analyses I had studied in my First Year Seminar. In their original form, speech analyses were written catered to the expectations of a specific professor; academic writing should be “mistake free,” “innovative” and make new argumentative points about why the speech is renowned. However, I chose to counter this thinking with the belief that arguments should be both persuasive and personal. I wanted to discover how drawing connections to the real world, examining the relevance of the speech through a modern lens, and providing a more intimate backstory of the writer can develop a better essay.

To make these connections, the largest innovation I implemented was the usage of video clips directly from the senate speech. I thought this would allow for a level of personalization that conveys the passion, sadness, and fear more than just quotes from a written transcript. These changes, along with adding anecdotes of personal argument and connections to US policy today, were meant to draw connections to modern times. I used these innovations to take this essay beyond “how” the speech works, but rather “why” the speech should be listened to in both 2003 and 2022, highlighting the trends of declining democracy and diplomacy across the world.

However, this assignment was not directed toward a general audience, but rather a specific teacher with set guidelines. While the innovations helped support and enhance the overall argument, taking such a risk in a college setting is something I would not be inherently comfortable with. However, this professor’s goal was to see his students implement higher level thinking in their academic work. If I were to approach him and emphasize how I believe these innovations develop the essay, while also providing supportive documentation of other academia that combines two mediums to enhance an argument, I think he would be impressed with the chance I am employing to make a stronger, more “innovative” argument. I believe that the original assignment constricted my outlook to one unwilling to take any risks; however, hindsight reveals that communicating with my professor and making an argument that these innovations are important could have led to a better paper. This risk-taking paper is the final innovated essay presented above, and I am so glad I had the opportunity to enhance one of my favorite pieces of writing.

From Professor Alisa Russell

Commentary:

All writing — and especially academic writing — works because there are shared expectations between an author and audience. We immediately know the difference between a textbook, a text message, and an advertisement. They may all be done in writing, but they use different features in a different order, and we get used to those features and learn to expect them. Therefore, there’s always risk involved when we write differently than expected, especially in academia where the expectations are so crystallized. What’s so stunning about Jordan’s innovation to this very classic genre of a Speech Analysis is that she does not completely transform the genre so as to break the relationship between the author and audience. She is very strategic in what she changes or adds. She deeply understands that all of these rhetorical features are not neutral — the way we write within any particular setting is steeped in values and ideologies. In order to introduce new or different values and ideologies into that setting, you can change the writing. Jordan carefully considers the values associated with the usual rhetorical features of a Speech Analysis: She sees their usefulness in analyzing a speech, but she also sees their shortcomings. Thus, Jordan makes these small shifts throughout the piece to bring new ways of knowing to the Speech Analysis. Perhaps most importantly, with this innovation, Jordan is insightfully questioning the divide between logic and emotion that seems to exist in most academic writing, and she is also highlighting the urgency academics should feel to make their work relevant and connected to a larger audience. One of my favorite parts of this innovation is when Jordan reflects on what it would actually be like to enact the innovation in her class where she originally wrote the Speech Analysis — it involves speaking with the professor, providing him with some samples of academic work that makes these moves, and opening a collaborative dialogue with him. Those logistics matter — innovating genres of writing will always be just an exercise until we think through the logistics of how it might actually happen!

Assignment:

Genre Innovation

Rationale

Building on what we know from the Genre Analysis, genres always carry with them certain ways of knowing and acting. They position the readers and writers into particular roles; they emphasize certain values; and they allow for some actions while disallowing others. Thus, it’s important to know how to strategically innovate genres that constrain or disallow for the kinds of positions we want to take, values we want to emphasize, or actions we wish to perform, especially since genres can enable or limit certain actions or values.

Assignment Details

#1. For this assignment, you will first look back over the three genres we’ve engaged in this course so far:

your “school-sponsored” genre
your “self-sponsored” genre
the Genre Analysis

You will consider which actions, values, or beliefs behind these genres’ conventions you may want to change or challenge.

#2. You will choose one of these three genres to innovate by strategically changing one of more of its conventions (author/audience, evidence/appeals, organization/formatting, tone/style). In your innovated version, you will include 6-8 marginal comments that explain the innovations and how they differ from the original genre and how they productively challenge the actions, values, beliefs of participants in the genre.

#3. Then, you will also include a 750-word reflection that reviews the genre convention(s) you decided to innovate, what the purpose of these innovations are, why these innovations are important to you, and what the risks vs. rewards of these innovations are.

Target Features

An exemplary final innovation will:

be effectively revised to reflect the innovation of at least one genre convention
strategically and coherently blend the innovated convention with the rest of the genre’s rhetorical elements
include 6-8 marginal comments that insightfully explain the innovations and their differences from the original draft

An exemplary final reflection will:

fully and insightfully explore the innovations, their purpose, their importance, and their risks vs. rewards
consistently and effectively make clear connections between ideas

Editor Comments

1
Before bringing in Byrd’s speech, an introduction of the war here helps create context for the readers.
2
In one sentence, a contrast between the mentality of the United States and Byrd’s primary arguments is well-built, highlighting his insights.
3
An analysis of the concession used by Byrd to settle his possible opponents.
4
An incisive summary of Byrd’s main idea.
5
A lens out from Byrd’s speech to connect with readers in today’s era.
6
Being patriotic but in a critical and reasonable way is a thought-provoking lesson to every citizen.
7
Analyzing Byrd’s volume adds texture to the article and brings it alive.
8
Although a widely used rhetorical technique, the backstory and significance of using it are worth discussing.
9
Word by word and action by action, the specification here is a good model for close-up analyses.
10
The clever link between the speech and events happening so far emphasizes Byrd’s statements and sets an alarm for the public.
11
Picking up the fact that the most traumatic part of the war is its victims appeals to the emotion of readers.
12
A major difference between a speech video and its hardcopy is audio. Jordan made a good use of this to further dissect Byrd’s speech.
13
Without the connection to the present world, the article will not feel as relatable and far-reaching as it currently is.
14
It is possible for readers to keep lingering on the article after reading by how Jordan wrapped it up from an ethical standpoint.