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.
