Posted on 01/31/2002 7:11:12 AM PST by Starmaker
"... as we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our union has never been stronger."
What a pleasant surprise! Based on previous State of the Union addresses, George Bush's limitations as a speaker, and George Will's criticisms last Sunday on This Week of the whole State of the Union business, I was tempted to skip the speech, and work on my book, fearing that I would otherwise be bored to tears. But there was nothing boring Tuesday night.
The address had a great opening: "Yet the State of our union has never been stronger." It had powerful imagery: "At a memorial in New York, a little boy left his football with a note for his lost father: 'Dear Daddy, please take this to Heaven. I don't want to play football until I can play with you again someday.'" It practiced necessary diplomacy vis-a-vis our enemy, Islam, "If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic street greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning and tolerance and progress." And it had a nice parallel at the end: "We have known freedom's price. We have shown freedom's power...."
I think Brit Hume on Fox 5 in New York was dead-on, about the role of Bush's faith, in saying that "G-d is near," while at the same time using restraint. Hume was also on the money, regarding the President's turn to nation-building. Bill Kristol was having multiple orgasms afterwards, thinking to himself, 'We did it, we did it, we got the Pres. on board for our universal-interventionist foreign policy!'
Truth be told, though the world curses us, the world will not tolerate an isolationist America. Not the so-called Western world, which attacks us for leading, yet expects us to fight its battles. Not the Islamic world, which takes billions in aid from us, even as it denounces us as "Big Satan." Not even the remnants of the communist world, where dictators facing famine (as in North Korea) still want America to feed their starving people. I wonder how many America First isolationists, e.g., Bill Kauffman, will be picketing the defense plants that will be putting unemployed, Middle American, former factory workers back to work?
George Bush may not be Abe Lincoln -- who is? -- and yet, he has his own style of playing mystic chords of memory. His is a call for a return to innocence, to virtue ("Ask not what your country can do for you ..."), to the knowledge that we are the good guys.
Several weeks ago, a pundit suggested that there was a feeling of altruism, of service, of love of country abroad in the land, such that hundreds of thousands of people would rise to serve their country in a heartbeat, if George Bush would merely say the word. I was despairing that Bush was missing this great opportunity. With the President's unveiling of USA Freedom Corps, I despair no more.
And then there are the Arabs. When Mr. Bush said, "Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps," I thought he should have said, "Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were Saudi nationals." When he observed that, "Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder," he expanded to cover the PLO. And when Bush closed the section on terrorism with, "But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will," again, I thought I heard him accusing the Saudis. Perhaps that was merely my hope, but after four months of the Saudis' hard work, in proving that they are our enemies, I may not be imagining things.
If there was anything wrong with the speech, it was in George Bush offering something for everyone. "Good jobs" for welfare clients; health ("a patients' bill of rights"); health (for uninsured workers) , health (for veterans), health (prescription drugs for the elderly); "... broader home ownership, especially among minorities..."; "historic education reform so that no child is left behind"; "improved Head Start and early childhood development programs"; "upgrade[d] teacher colleges and teacher training"; even a cleaner environment.
Which brings me to the unpleasant surprise: This State of the Union Address could easily have been given by a Democrat. It's a budget-buster of a statement. It's a document promising us more of Leviathan, not less. And yet, Mr. "Looking for Friends in All the Wrong Places" still failed to soften his enemies' hearts. A socialist commentator accompanying Brit Hume of Fox 5 in New York, complained, "There was nothing for minorities." Had a socialist president called for "good jobs" for [black] welfare clients, "broader [black] home ownership," even MORE aid to that anti-intellectual, minority money pit, Head Start, people "rebuild[ing black] communities," "mentors to love [black] children ... whose parents are in prison," "more talented teachers in troubled [black] schools," and quoted black socialist Marian Wright Edelman on leaving no child behind, the same commentator would surely have applauded his "commitment to social justice."
Funny thing about these "radical right" Republicans. New Yorkers elected one, George Pataki, governor in 1994, and he instituted social welfare programs (Health Plus), and gutted welfare reform, while going on the sort of spending orgy that his socialist predecessor, Mario Cuomo, had refused to contemplate. Our allegedly far-right President, meanwhile, is spending like a drunken sailor, while cutting taxes.
That's politics, for you. Full of surprises, pleasant and otherwise.
The exceptions were Johnson, who certainly prided himself on seeking a consensus but who was first carried away by his landslide and then carried off by the rise of radicalism, Carter, who was independent-minded and not so willingly a Cold War leader, and Reagan, who was certainly a Cold War President, but in a country where consensus no longer existed and couldn't be restored along the post-New Deal pattern. Reagan's "radicalism" is always exagerated, but it is true that he couldn't or wouldn't stay entirely and forever in the groove that Eisenhower established. He wanted to change the dimensions of American domestic policy, not radically, but in some areas significantly.
So Bush is nothing new. He's a lot like Nixon or Eisenhower. The same sort of Republican President sometimes carrying through liberal Democratic policies. Social liberalism is no longer the dominant ideology in the country, but it remains powerful in Washington.
Seen against the hopes of the Reagan era, Bush is in some ways a disappointment. But parties intend to govern. They want to form majorities and get reelected. Their finest hours come in opposition, when they stand for a given set of principles. But they can't remain the principled opposition forever without disappearing, and in office they have to be more practical. Once in office, political figures also have wider responsiblities than newspaper or magazine or e-zine ideologues. And beyond all this, Bush will be judged as a war President, and his chief responsibilities will lie in that sphere.
One question to think about is, how much control do parties have to have to make real changes? Controling the Presidency and having a small margin in one house may allow for some new departures, but not many. And what do you prioritize? Saying Bush is all wrong isn't so hard, but what do you cut first? What do you stake your seats on in the next election?
Even Reagan had to concentrate on a few big ideas and changes, rather than many small ones. And prioritizing does keep parties and nations out of too much trouble. When they get their way on everything, the possibility for mischief increases.
Your first name wouldn't happen to be Stephen, would it?
If you think about it GWB is not only the child of a President, but his father's career puts him in two political "bloodlines": Eisenhower -> Nixon -> GHWB -> GWB and Reagan -> GHWB -> GWB. Reagan's impression on G.W. Bush and today's GOP is stronger, but that Eisenhower-Nixon lineage is always in the background, and was very important in shaping the previous Bush Presidency. Perhaps it will also be found to be the stronger influence on this Bush Presidency as well.
I don't know if the first two propositions are valid, but the third may well come true. Maybe Brands inserted that last bit after 911, but this is a strange case of a book being both obsolete and exceptionally timely even before it's published.
If history is any guide, we may see not just new security measures, but more general social policies and social changes designed to win us support in other parts of the world in our current war.
Aside from that, I think your last statement is -- unfortunately -- correct. We are going to spend much more than even before trying to buy friends abroad, who will ultimately either be fair-weather friends (see the government of Saudi Arabia) who stab us in the back, when we call in our markers, or our worst enemies, who murder our citizens (see the Saudi rulling class).
Because we're not allowed to criticize wrongs in government? Hmmm....
LOL - gotta remember that one :)
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.