A recent editorial noted that a former speech writer for President Bush had written an article on Shakespeare. The editorial’s author, who clearly was no fan of the president, found it ironic that a former Bush administration member (particularly one responsible for the much-discussed phrase “axis of evil”) would laud the complexity of Shakespeare’s characters. This writer found this oxymoronic in light of what he felt was the president’s simplistic nature. In doing so, the writer made an extended comparison between Bush and Hal from Shakespeare’s historical Henry cycle.

Rather than get myself in hot water by taking sides on the president or his policies, I would rather interrogate the validity of the writer’s comparison. This Hal/Bush pairing is puzzling coming on the heels of his assertion that Shakespeare is complex while Bush is rudimentary. Supporters of the president hail his undeterred sense of purpose in the face of much opposition while his detractors criticize his narrow-minded inflexibility. Both sides are addressing the same quality—one that in some ways might be more relatable to Greek drama than Shakespeare. Antigone’s Creon, with his unwavering belief in the state and his leadership of it, seems more applicable to Bush than characters like Hamlet, who are famous in part for their indecision. What the editorial does point to is that Shakespeare’s plays (like Greek drama) often follow people in power and what happens to them as they use (and often misuse) that power. As a result, they can provide points of comparison and analysis for politicians of any affiliation, both the inspiring and the inept.

Posted Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:45:57 and filed under Henry IV, Henry V, Hamlet, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.