Posted on 01/29/2002 7:09:28 PM PST by woofie
Tuesday, January 29, 2002
BUSH TRANSFIGURED: The development of Bush Republicanism took another step in this speech. It was in many ways a masterly transition. The president started soberly, talking, as he should have, about by far the most urgent task in front of us: the war on terrorism. Listening and looking at him, I felt even more securely than in the past, that he gets it. He understands that the danger is still enormous; that the risks still huge; the price of failure unthinkable. We needed to be reminded. Even those of us most intent on a thorough war on terror had felt our concentration lapse; our focus blur. Bush sharpened it – and us - again. I was struck by the phrase, ‘I will not wait on events.’ It was perhaps an unintentional rebuke to his predecessor and to his pre-9/11 self. But it was reassuring nonetheless. Also surprising and perhaps important: Iran was mentioned before Iraq. For those of you who remember, this is a re-emphasis I’ve been arguing for for a while. It was extremely encouraging to see it in the speech. That Iran-sponsored boat full of weapons for the PLO was arguably the dumbest initiative those clerical thugs have perpetrated in a very long time. This new emphasis also lies behind, I think, the new tough line with the Palestinians. An Iranian-backed client state on the West Bank has to be avoided. So we may have to deal with Iran if we are ever going to forge some kind of peace in Palestine. The president is obviously spending a lot of time with Paul Wolfowitz.
PULLING A CLINTON: Domestically, the president did something even sharper. He did to the Democrats what Clinton did to the Republicans. He co-opted large amounts of their agenda – some of it disingenuously, some of it genuinely. He tackled the gender gap masterfully. He did it visually by seeming to give nods to more women than men - introducing the Afghan woman minister, the grieving Spann widow, the heroic female flight attendants, the First Lady, and others. And he did so rhetorically, describing respect for women, for example, as a non-negotiable American principle. His outreach to Ted Kennedy will resonate with moderates; his emphasis on education neutralizes a strong Democratic issue; his calls for more spending on domestic programs, like the extension of unemployment benefits and a modest prescription drug program, can only further increase his bipartisan appeal. But where he went beyond Clinton was in not just co-opting the opposition’s most popular programs, but in also appealing to the McCain-Perot middle. He did this by Kennedy-esque calls for service to country, for volunteerism, and putting goals other than self at the center of our lives. I liked his comparison between two cultures: that of “If it feels good, do it,” and “Let’s Roll.” Notice that the sixties have not been replaced by some moralizing or constrictive social conservatism - but by a more neutral, uplifting spirit of action and service, a problem-solving ethic that is practical but also moral, and deeply American.
IN GOD HE TRUSTS: I can see how David Brooks will be heartened by this speech. It has a certain amount of TR in it; and it certainly moves distinctively away from Reaganite skepticism of government. All that is to the good. Skepticism of government and respect for government are two central conservative moods. In this time of national emergency, conservatives should emphasize the latter. But I was also struck by Bush’s appeal to the religious right. He appealed to their most important contribution to the debate – not their stigmatization of others, but their insistence on a moral center to our public life. Bush restated again and again the principle of the reality of evil. And he said at one point that we can only defeat evil with God on our side. This invocation of God – in a non-routine or formulaic way – was very striking. It will have resonated with many religious people in the country, but especially with the most devout. This faith and its surety in Bush will be enough to keep the social conservatives in his coalition, while allowing him to expand government in small but critical ways and broaden the Republican tent even wider. I’m sure with reflection, I’ll think of some caveats about this speech, but right now, I can’t see how he went wrong. I’d say his ratings would go up. But then, they can hardly go any higher. Perhaps the one thing to take from this speech is the most important one. The president has not let down his guard against the enemy. However great the temptation, neither should we.
Oh, dear. Is it terminal? How much time do we have left? Is there anything you can do for me, doc, or should I get my affairs in order?
Who did you vote for, Buckaroo? I'm curious.
And it was pretty ineffectual sputtering at that. Gephardt's "response" was almost comic, consistly mainly of his telling us a number of times that *he* was the one who told the Prez that everyone had to work together for the sake of the war. As if. LOL
Well, if you get past the "feel" and come up with any "logic," pray tell us what it is.
You keep in mind that it was the clintons that cut the military. we need a strong military, it never should have been cut the way it was.
Of course you disdain agreement; that would mean that you aren't as " special ", as you oagie you are. :-)
You want to read well thought out, cogent, worthwhile posts ? Read John Huang2's editorials.
You claim that this nation now has a cold, but will soon develope cancer ? Based on the president's speech ? That is ludicrous ! WE LIVED WITH CANCER IN THYE WHITE HOUSE, FOR EIGHT LONG, WEARY YEARS ; IT'S OVER ! Clinton stood by, and watched this nation and miltary and soverign embassies blown up. He did NOTHING. He sold off / gave away our secrets. If Arafat has three working brain cells, he could have sold out Israel ! He apologised for slavery, to the VERY people, who had sold those slaves. He had Lewinshies, while eating pizza AND talking about sending our military overseas. I guess you have been fast alseep, or you enjoyed all of those things PLUS having your taxes raised.
Your political acumen isn't very good at all. You can't see the forest for the trees. The State of the Union speech was devistating to the Dems, and though I didn't like 100 % of it, it was SO politically savy, AND good for this country, as to be beyond brilliant.
Our nation wasn't founded upon an ever EXPLODING government to micro-manage our lives. It was fashioned from a diametrical point of view. Now, you are agreeing with a so-called conservative begging Congress to up the ante within his statements this evening. Give me a break! You are as liberal as GWB.
THAT'S IT?? We have kill the equivalent of a 9/11 and a half each and every day in this country and that's all it rates in his State of the Union? No "hearts and minds", no plan to reduce abortions, no public campaigns, no mention of fighting the abortion industry? NOTHING?
How is Bush is "pro-life", again?
Cut it out, Bucky. Your "in your face" style is useless and only serves to keep you from any useful discussion. However, apparently from your earlier comments, you aren't here for any reason except to disagree. Pity.
However, the fact that there *is* a debt doesn't justify your thesis that Bush's approach will cause "cancer," a totally useless analogy, BTW. But, if I recall past conversations with you, getting any solid logic is pretty unlikely.
Now, I suppose we could just *not* fund the military and *not* rebuild NY. Or, we could pour good money after bad and fund endless unemployment. Or, we could stimulate the economy -- the only real solution to debt.
It is designed to hide the facts from you while simultaneously making you feel warm and cozy about your government. I hope you drink a lot of scotch to forget this nightmare. We are doomed.
With all due respect, that's not his job. It's ours.
Besides, the battle will never be won by "fighting," but by "persuading." Fighting will only continue the polarization and prolong the stalemate. Bush's quiet conviction is absolutely key to changing the national heart on this issue.
So far, I have only talked about the federal budget as being 1/3 the GDP. I have yet to state the other forms of government that control public debt, state, county and city forms. America is bankrupt, pal. Face it.
Fine. So the battle will be won by persuading. How did Bush persuade anyone that abortion is wrong tonight?
You got one thing right -- Bush's conviction is certainly "quiet" -- VERY quiet. In fact I'd say the silence was deafening.
Too late, you've already let the cat out of the bag.
Your comments are intriguing, but I don't see anyone in politics today reflecting that sort of traditionalism that was long identified with Burke. Certainly not the neo-cons, who seem more fixed on power than tradition or community. Lately, conquest and empire appear to have caught their imagination more than anything else.
The neo-cons are certainly a far cry from those Burkean traditionalists and communitarians like Kirk and Nisbet, who had few good words for initiatives from Washington. It could be that the fact that neither lived in Washington affected their thinking and kept them from becoming too politicized. It's also just possible that their belief that government efforts at building community usually only succeed in expanding the size of government is right. In any case, hooking up with Kristol & his friends would be a very bad move for Bush.
Bush does seem to have transcended the older oppositions by "thinking outside the box," though, and that is commendable:
Notice that the sixties have not been replaced by some moralizing or constrictive social conservatism - but by a more neutral, uplifting spirit of action and service, a problem-solving ethic that is practical but also moral, and deeply American.
Whatever one's opinion of Sullivan's language or the chances of success for the President's policies, Bush does seem to have turned a page in American politics and made it his own. While most people do have opinions about the questions in the "culture wars" -- often very strong opinions -- they are tired of these conflicts being the centerpiece of American politics, and are looking for new themes and approaches in politics. Consider it not a defeat or a victory, but as a way of breaking up a stalemate. The same conflicts go on, but in a different context and further from center stage.
If we have gone through all the changes to get back to TR or JFK, I can't help thinking the wheel will roll back again through the subsequent stages of the cycle before we're through. So I wish the man well, but will still be a bit skeptical about the government. Not that patriotism and public service aren't good things -- they are -- but some of the things they are used to promote may not be best for us.
You mean as in giving money back to the people to spend themselves so government *can't* spend it? Maybe you missed that part of the plan. Or, maybe you think we can make the cuts you refer to overnight. Like someone who gains 50 pounds over 5 years and thinks they should lose it all in a week.
The question we should be asking is if we are moving in the right direction. We are. The gloom and "we are doomed" speeches are not productive and do nothing but seed disent. Folks who do that are rarely interested in solutions, only issues to moan about.
The same way he does every day. By living his faith.
I am always suspicious of someone who thinks he can speak for the actions of another person of faith. How he approaches the issue is not your call and to suggest that you can second guess another Christian is abhorrent to me. But, we've had this conversation before, haven't we? Is your middle initial "J" by any chance?
You see, we have a serious problem in America that you can't seem to understand. We have all kinds of do nothing federal agencies sucking are dollars. It is always easy to identify a national problem and rally the people in support of the current issues but have you given thought about some of the agencies that receive billions of dollars that do nothing? Yes, they do nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.