Did President Bush give a good speech last night? Yes. Did he
give a great speech? Yes. Did he give a bad speech? Yes.
When I divide last night’s State of the Union address into three
different speeches, I’m not referring to the three major sections
of the speech. Those sections, connected by the theme of making the
world better for future generations, called first for being “good
stewards of this economy, and renew[ing] the great institutions on
which millions of our fellow citizens rely,” second for “pass[ing]
along the values that sustain a free society,” and third for
leaving “an America that is safe from danger, and protected by
peace.” But that was just a framing device. In this 5,000-word
address, the real dividing lines were between the 1,100-word
portion on Social Security reform — call that Speech One; the
2,200-word portion on foreign policy — call that Speech Two; and
everything else— a Speech Three consisting of the dull laundry
list of minor policy proposals that traditionally lard up State of
the Union addresses, making them lose their rhetorical shape.
Speech One was a good explanation of the problems with the
Social Security system, touching on some of the major reform
proposals without committing to many specifics. The booing from the
opposition — the first boos heard during a State of the Union
address since Bill Clinton faced newly elected Republican
majorities ten years ago — underscored that this is the fight that
will dominate domestic politics this year.
Speech Two was the sequel to the second Inaugural address two
weeks ago. In that speech, Bush laid out the broad principle that a
long-term commitment to the spread of liberty is a national
security priority without delving into the details. Here, Bush
started to address those details, celebrating the bravery of the
Iraqis who stared down terrorist threats to vote on Sunday and
making some surprisingly specific calls for liberalization from
regimes in the region. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the halls of
power in Riyadh, Cairo, Damascus, and Tehran during this
passage:
The government of Saudi Arabia can demonstrate its
leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in
determining their future. And the great and proud nation of Egypt,
which showed the way toward peace in the Middle East, can now show
the way toward democracy in the Middle East.
To promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront
regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of
mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of
Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance
of peace in the region. You have passed, and we are applying, the
Syrian Accountability Act — and we expect the Syrian government to
end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. Today,
Iran remains the world’s primary state sponsor of terror —
pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom
they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make
clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium
enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its
support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As
you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.
Near the end of Speech Two, and the State of the Union as a
whole, Bush paid tribute to our troops, and we saw the moving image
in the First Lady’s box of Iraqi democracy activist Safia Taleb
al-Suhail, whose thank-you to American forces the President quoted
from the podium, hugging Janet Norwood, the mother of a fallen
Marine.
Combining Speech One and Speech Two into one address already
made it, as State of the Union addresses tend to be, a speech that
covers quite a bit of ground. The detritus of Speech Three was
really too much: it made the first half of the address drag on with
mini-proposals: job training, “strengthening” community colleges,
increasing Pell Grants, community health centers for poor counties,
tort reform targeting asbestos claims, a comprehensive energy
strategy, a bipartisan tax-reform panel, a temporary guest-worker
program, HIV/AIDS prevention, special training for defense
attorneys in capital cases, and so on. Whatever the merits of these
proposals, their ability to engage an audience is not one of
them.
Yes, voters like to hear their favorite pet projects, which is
why these laundry lists exist. But they dilute the power of a major
address to address major issues. And major issues are not something
we’re short on. Next year, Bush’s speechwriters ought to be more
ruthless in their editing. A little fat-cutting could have vastly
improved this speech, and might do wonders for the next one.
