State of the Union Coming Up
Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting column for the Wall Street Journal: ‘My Fellow Americans . . .’: Thoughts in advance of the State of the Union.
State of the Union speeches run long–they announce an administration’s plans and proposals for the coming year, and that takes time–and by nature they have a lot of boring parts. It’s not a straight arrow of a speech with a theme and a destination, but something that pongs and bounces for 50 minutes. I continue to think the White House should issue two States of the Union simultaneously. The first would be a lengthy written document containing all plans and proposals for each agency, and a review of where we are. The second would be the address, a thematic speech devoted to the great and pressing issue of the day. Just having a White House decide what the issue is would be illuminating. In 1962, for instance, John F. Kennedy might likely have spoken either of the struggle with Soviet communism or of the rise of the American civil-rights movement. Whichever he chose, and how he spoke of it, would say worlds about where we were going and who he was. History would respect it, as opposed to wading through it. And normal people would listen.
The big thing I’d like to hear the president say this year? There are areas toward which he can point with pride, most especially the still not fully recognized triumph of the U.S. economy, a jobs-making, wealth-making dynamo. That it is so strong, so high, five years after 9/11 is amazing, and moving, too: A lot of individual toil went into that. How did it happen, what cultural implications does it hold, what are we doing wrong, what will strengthen growth, what will undermine it? Serious and textured thoughts are, here, overdue.
But there is no denying that Iraq is, still, subject No. 1. In connection with that, I wish the president would take time to acknowledge and think aloud about the bitterness that has come to surround the entire postinvasion American polity. The feeling of mutual sympathy that swept America’s political class in the days after 9/11 has dissipated, if not disappeared. And this is true not only in government but in newspapers, on the Internet, in the culture.
It’s been an era of soft thinking and hard words. Those who opposed the war were weak and craven; those who supported it were dupes and bullies; those who came to oppose the war were cowards bowing to polls; those who continue to support it love all war all the time. Some of this was inevitable–the stakes could barely be higher; passions flare. But it’s not getting us anywhere. And it’s limiting debate. It’s making people fearful.
It is time for a kind of verbal amnesty in which thoughts are considered before motives are judged. An admission that the White House is as responsible for this situation as everyone else would help clear the air–and just might prompt some soul-searching in members of the audience. An honest plea here could break through the cement that has hardened over the debate. Who could answer harshly when a president who loves his country admitted the problem and pleaded for change? That’s what might really hit reset.
True, but critics would say that the White House is one of the instigators of the “soft thinking and hard words” culture. That is, at least to a degree, correct. They could argue; why should we now, when things go wrong for the White House, suddenly ‘calm down’ and treat each other with respect and openness?
Such an attitude might be logical, but I fail to see how it could possibly be in the best interest of America. Americans need to come together to tackle today’s problems. The country – and I’m talking from the perspective of a Dutchman – has been divided among partisan and ideological lines for far too long. “Divide and conquer” only works in the short run. “Divide and conquer” brings personal power, but it does not allow one to actually solve problems.
What the left should try to remember, firstly, is that Bush has not been a complete and utter failure. Some of his policies went horribly wrong, obviously, such as the Iraq war, but there were also successes, as Peggy points out in her column. What the right should try to remember, firstly, is that Bush critics aren’t automatically ‘wacko’ liberals and that those who are not conservatives might actually have very valid ideas.
Bush should use the State of the Union to bring the country together… as much as possible that is. I’m quite sure that Bush has lost the ability to bring a large majority of the American people together, but a smaller majority should be possible. At least regarding certain policies, obviously with the exception of the Iraq War. Appeal to the people, try to find common ground should be the basic fundament of this (and every) State of the Union… Honesty, realism and moderation. Not too much conservative rhetoric. In short: keep it real.
I’d say… when speaking about Iraq, keep it simple, moderate yet hopeful. Treat it as what it is: a point on which the majority of the American people strongly disagrees with the President. Score points on other subjects, focus on them.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “State of the Union Coming Up”
“State of the Union Coming Up”
No, I didn’t read this lengthy article, Michael. Because nobody cares about the sotu anymore, so why should I? The importance of these presidential speeches was nicely rounded up by a reporter who reported that at the last sotu he didn’t dare to ask the folks in the bar for switching from a baseball play to the live transmission from the WH. He chose to watch it as streaming video on the computer in the bar’s office instead. So, for ordinary people Bush’s rants aren’t worth the effort of switching the channel. Only hardcore followers and people reporting about the speech go to the length of exposing themselves to that right wing propaganda series anymore.
Amen Gray, I didn’t read the article and I sure ain’t gonna listen to the State of the Union Adrress. It’s all going to be a bunch of baloney anyway. What he says he’s going to do and what he actually does just don’t match up.
Gee didn’t the last SOTU promise to end America’s addiction to foreign oil? Two days later the administration met with the Saudis to reassure them that we’d still be their best customer. For most Americans it will be a big yawn, not an opportunity to unite the country in our common goals. We will have to wait until ’08 to try for that.
“What the left should try to remember, firstly, is that Bush has not been a complete and utter failure. Some of his policies went horribly wrong, obviously, such as the Iraq war, but there were also successes…”
Name ONE.
Tax cuts for the investor class that built their fortunes on them. The rest of us should just stop whining about their hero.
With Rove still around any attempt at bi-partisanship will be viewed with a great degree of sceptisism, If he truly would want to show a political correction firing Rove would go a long way to show he means it in action as well as words.
Grognard- To Bush, bipartisanship has always meant Democrats coming around to his way of thinking, not the other way around. That’s why he always trots out Joe Lieberman, when he wants to show that his foreign policies have bipartisan support.
Peggy Noonan slips into the passive grammatical voice to blame society for her own offenses.
Michael,
Any article that calls the economy under Bush an amazing wealth making dynamo and doesn’t understand why the majority of the population doesn’t care since they’re not seeing the wealth isn’t really worth paying attention to. In addition for the majority of the time this Administration has been in office she has been one of its cheerleaders.
Bush should use the State of the Union to bring the country together… as much as possible that is.
I think it’s way past the point where Bush has the credibility to bring the country together. As others have stated, despite his words about bi-partisanship there has been little (if any) action to back up those words. Instead, bi-partisanship at the moment seems to involve both sides pretending that the President isn’t there and then coming to their own decisions.
As examples of current bi-partisanship, look at the fact that numerous Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats on their 100 hour agenda. Similarly, Democrats have thus far mostly avoided polarizing issues such as abortion, gun control, etc. There are of course individuals on both sides that continue to demonize each other, but at least for the moment it seems that the majorities within each party are making efforts to find common ground and work from there. Given that development, whether Bush calls for bi-partisanship or hurls insults at his opponents during the State of the Union address becomes irrelevant; the majority of people just aren’t listening to him anymore.
Who the hell cares what windbag Noonan says any more? Could anyone be as consistently wrong while sucking up to the biggest crooks around? She lauds the “not fully recognized triumph of the U.S. economy, a jobs-making, wealth-making dynamo.”
Right, if you’re in her income bracket and don’t care about your kids. The credit card Republicans and their “haves and have mores” base don’t care at all that we’ll be paying for decades for this faux prosperity, if in fact we ever recover.
Just for perspective, if you start counting out $100 bills as fast as you can 24/7, you’ll have the national debt paid off in 3,000 years !
Grognard, I think you’ve hit on a suggestion W might actually consider, in view of how the ’06 elections went and how W reacted.
Firing Rove would at least make a splash.
The state of the union is a bitter divide. It occurs to me that if Bush can strike the right chord, he might try acknowledging that and also acknowledging his own part in it. If done properly, it might actually boost the morale of the country and begin the healing process.