A president’s reputation lies not only in his accomplishments and in the trials he faces, but also in the speeches he delivers about those very things. And while President George W. Bush has never been known for his amazing speaking ability, Tuesday night’s State of the Union address was certainly not one for which he will be remembered. Coming from a president who unified the country hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, his condescending and negative State of the Union was a heavy dose of partisanship and divisiveness at a time when the country needs a leader who can bring people together – a quality he has often said he has.
Instead of unifying the nation and offering a constructive outlook on the country’s status, Bush used the president’s annual address to Congress to attack his opponents and push his own political agenda forward. By “conveniently” scheduling the address immediately after the Iowa Caucuses, Bush framed the speech as a 2004 campaign kick off from the get-go. It was hardly an act worthy of such a grand stage.
Many of the proposals he presented during the address were no more than heavy rhetoric and political gamesmanship.
His entire group of proposals on strengthening American values was little more than red meat for the political right, and it all exemplified the speech’s condescending tone. His proposal to double federal funding for programs that promote abstinence as the only form of birth control is ludicrous. If he thinks American teenagers will stop having sex if they are told enough, he is wrong. Bush is looking at the 21st century through 19th century glasses.
Bush’s proposal to provide $23 million to schools for drug testing programs is also invasive and wrong-headed. Testing is not an effective way to stop students from using drugs, and while there is no absolute or immediate solution to the problem, $23 million would be much better spent funding treatment centers and other approaches that have proven to be positive approaches to the problem.
Bush also stepped on shaky ground in his discussion of the politically polarizing issue of gay marriage. His strong defense of “traditional” marriages was clearly an attempt to keep the issue on the agenda for the 2004 campaign, but he should not assume too much. Though he claimed to speak for the “will of the people” in defending marriages between a man and a woman, Bush must realize that more than a small minority of the country would support a liberalization of marriage and civil union rules. His rhetoric also sounded directly out of the 1960s civil rights debates, as he attacked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as an activist judicial body, despite his own attempts to pack federal courts with conservative judges in the hope that they will be active on issues he agrees with.
Much of the rest of Bush’s speech included flashy rhetoric and high praise for administration initiatives, as he attempted to paint a rosy picture of his own agenda for the campaign. But once again, Americans should be wary – the picture is much more muddled than he led on.
On education, Bush claimed his No Child Left Behind initiative has flourished in schools, providing much-needed reform for a large public system. He snapped at his opponents, saying the clock should not be turned back on reform. But while his approaches to education may be innovative, the president has not provided proper funding for his expansive program of tests and accountability. New approaches are fine and good, but they must be more than just words – they must be backed up with money, and that is something Bush has failed to do thus far.
Bush also demanded that the tax cuts he passed in 2001 be made “permanent” while promising to cut the deficit – which he created with those very tax cuts – in half within five years. Again, he should not have mislead – it will be impossible to fund new programs, keep significant tax cuts in place and pay off the deficit at the same time. Instead of misguiding the public, Bush should have explained the actual economic situation.
There were some high points of his remarks on domestic policy – his proposals for reforming the country’s foreign worker rules and helping prisoners re-enter society after stays in jail sounded like positive approaches to real problems. Still, his comments as a whole did not tell an accurate story.
Bush also misinformed Americans about the state of American foreign policy, talking about flourishing democracies and great conquests where the situations are much more nuanced. His remarks about the state of Afghanistan and Iraq made the two countries sound like fully functional democracies with fully functioning governments and good public services, any glance across the daily headlines would give anyone a different view. Bush should have taken the State of the Union to intertwine comments about American successes in the region with discussion about the real challenges the country faces in the Middle East.
At one point, Bush also mentioned 34 countries – 17 by name – that have sent troops to Iraq, attempting to strike back at the argument that the war in Iraq was a unilateral action. Again, he mislead, and he coupled that with a combative message for the rest of the world. “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people,” he said in yet another example of the administration’s cavalier and insensitive approach to foreign policy. That outlook will not help America in future endeavors.
By addressing the war on terror and the war on Iraq at separate moments, Bush avoided facing the same criticism he faced last year after making the mistake of linking Saddam Hussein’s name with al-Qaida. And while it was good of Bush to point out that democracy is possible in the Middle East, he must remember that it does not mean Iraq will become a democracy in the next six months. He should not continue to make false promises to the American people.
Bush’s unrealistic goals and negative outlook provided a skewed view of the state of the union. The speech was far from the lofty responsibility the president’s yearly address is supposed to be. Bush did little more than fall victim to the election-year politics we will become all-too familiar with over the next 10 months.