Since I never actually learned to type and don't own a laptop, for me to simulblog President Bush's State of the Union last night would have been a joke. I'd have been scurrying from the family room to where my desktop sets and challenged my four typing fingers beyond their capacity. But now a few thoughts on last night's SOTU:
The one major disappointment I personally had with the speech came when he enumerated nations in need of democracy and the President failed to mention China. Over the long haul, I believe that the Chinese government represents the single greatest threat to peace and to the interests of the US in the world. This is rooted in that government's repressiveness, hegemonic designs, and economic development. We need to deal with those realities.
Having said that, whatever one's politics, I think that you have to count the President's speech a very good one. Bush is not a naturally gifted orator. But when he needs to hit one out of the park, he can do it. He did that again last night.
He presented an unapologetic defense of both the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq, including his domestic eavesdropping program. He was most effective in addressing this cluster of issues.
Domestically, the speech was an interesting grab bag of proposals.
With its combination of Wilsonian foreign policy and grand domestic initiatives, the speech at times sounded like one that could have easily been delivered by Lyndon Johnson.
But it was laced with a few conservative thoughts, bound to placate the Republican base. For the traditional conservative crowd, the President called for fiscal restraint. For the social conservatives, there were statements about the use of human embryos. For many conservatives of varied stamp, the call for making the tax cuts permanent was also no doubt welcome.
His proposal to establish a bipartisan commission on Social Security was artful and made the sarcasm with which the Democrats greeted his acknowledgement of the failure to change the program last year look tawdry.
The biggest surprise of the speech to me though, was the fact that he didn't mention outgoing Fed chair Alan Greenspan. You would think that the President would have wanted to tap into the bipartisan good feelings about Greenspan's eighteen year tenure. I'm baffled by this omission.
Overall though, I think that the speech confirms a shift in the definition of conservatism that has been happening during this administration. Bush conservatism certainly has little in common with the Republicanism practiced and preached by such luminaries of the party as Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan. (Or even the conservatism of his father.) The shift may be entirely warranted, but it's a decided, almost volcanic, one for sure.
4 comments:
Mark,
Interesting points, especially re: Greenspan. That is a surprising omission in retrospect. Perhaps he was going to be lauded, and then Mrs. King died and they needed to cut something for time in order to (appropriately) pay her proper tribute?
I think Bush has two problems in having this speech received the way in which he would like. First, there is the perceived disconnect between words and actions, which isn't shrinking. Second, while some of the points sounded nice, they fall apart under even cursory examination. For example, his call to make tax cuts permanent and halve the deficit by 2009 are mutually exclusive - the projections which show the deficit down to $190bil or so are based on the tax cuts expiring. Similarly, the "reduction in the growth of spending" doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. If I spent $0 on Monday, $50 yesterday and $90 today, I've reduced the increase in my spending, but I'm not exactly the poster child for financial responsibility.
Pooh:
(1) Your hypothesis about the Greenspan omission would make sense except that the President chose to publicly acknowledge the service of another person whose time in office ended yesterday: Sandra Day O'Connor.
Given that the most ardent and ideological members of the President's base probably are more frequently in agreement with Greenspan than with O'Connor, the exclusion of the one and the inclusion of the other is all the more mysterious to me.
(2) With regard to the spending reduction and tax cut proposals you mention, of course classic supply side economics argues that by freeing more money from the federal coffers, it goes into the economy to make capital investments. In the long run, the argument goes, with reduced tax rates, the new jobs created and higher incomes fostered actually increase tex revenues.
Thanks for the comments!
Mark
I very much noticed the absence of China from Bush's list of countries in need of democracy. My cynical thoughts revolve around the high economic potential that the west is seeing in China. We need only witness the compromises that Google and Microsoft are making. One only hopes that the fear of alienating a huge export market isn't the reason China is off the list. Somehow, though, I fear that this is precisely the reason.
The other thing of note to me was the silliness of the Democrats clapping at Bush's statements that nothing was done about Social Security last year. It was not a message from them that would win any points with me.
Of course, all of these comments from a guy living in Canada. All be it one who was born in the U.S. and who still respects and admires it and its people. (Especially its bloggers.)
Tim:
(1) I think it's true that every recent US president has treated the Chinese government with kid gloves precisely for these economic considerations. We in America need to ask ourselves if this is in our country's long-term best interest. There will be a day of reckoning in China. When it comes, will it be good for a newly-democratized nation, free of its shackles, to see in America a friend or a country that co-conspired with their imprisonment and repression? The answer to me is obvious.
(2) The Democrats certainly didn't come across as serious contenders for national leadership last night. Though some argue about the severity of the Social Security problem and others argue with the relevance of individual retirement accounts as a means of addressing solvency, that there are issues to be resolved regarding Social Security cannot be disputed. What were the Democratic members of Congress saying about the issue with that sophomoric display last night?
Of course, the Republicans were guilty of their own infantile gestures last evening as well.
Rather than engaging in their pep rally-liturgy last night, it would have been better, I think, for the pols to have simply listened to the President.
Thanks for your comments. By the way, thanks also for linking to my piece on being thankful for our scars on your blog!
God bless you, Tim.
Mark
Post a Comment