A Reveille, Not a RecordThe state of our union is … unmentionable.
By William SaletanPosted Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2003, at 12:40 AM ETIf you went to the refrigerator during the first three minutes of President Bush's State of the Union address, you missed the part where he discussed the state of the union. After a few words about his record on the economy, education, corporate responsibility, and homeland security, Bush spent the rest of the hour outlining plans and promises. It was the kind of speech a president gives when he's been in office two weeks, not two years.
Why didn't Bush talk about the state of the union? Because the state of the union is nothing to talk about. The stock market is in the toilet. The economy is going nowhere. Unemployment is up. The deficit is out of control. Remember those State of the Union speeches Bill Clinton gave? The guy couldn't stop quoting happy numbers. That's one problem Bush doesn't have.
As a president and orator, Bush has two great strengths: moral clarity and resolve. To the Iraqi people, he declared, "Your enemy is not surrounding your country; your enemy is ruling your country." To anti-war relativists, he observed of Saddam Hussein's atrocities, "If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." To the country and the world, he vowed: "Free people will set the course of history. … The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. … We will prevail." When Bush talks like that, he doesn't just send chills down people's spines. He puts steel in them.
That's the good news. The bad news is the way Bush ducked the bad news.
In discussing foreign policy, Bush laid out a tough standard: "America's purpose is more than to follow a process. It is to achieve a result." The result to be achieved was "the end of terrible threats to the civilized world." By that standard, he suggested, the U.N. inspection process was failing. To prove that this process was succeeding, said Bush, Saddam would have to give "evidence" of progress in disarmament. From the absence of such evidence, Bush concluded that Saddam "has much to hide."
By that standard, Bush, too, has failed. The state of the union isn't a process. It's a result. Yet in the few minutes Bush spent on what he had "accomplished," he spoke of processes, not results. "To lift the standards of our public schools, we achieved historic education reform," he said. "To protect our country, we reorganized our government. ... To bring our economy out of recession, we delivered the largest tax relief in a generation. To insist on integrity in American business, we passed tough reforms. … Some might call this a good record. I call it a good start."
Record? That isn't a record. It's an agenda. An agenda is the measures you enact: education reform, a Homeland Security department, tax relief, corporate oversight reform. A record is what those measures are supposed to accomplish: lifting public schools, protecting the country, ending the recession, improving corporate integrity. By inserting these hypothetical achievements at the beginning of each sentence about his agenda, Bush made them sound real. They aren't. His education bill remains unfunded. The corporate reforms he signed were watered down. The first Secretary of Homeland Security was sworn in four days ago. And the economy is still a wreck.
What Bush said of Saddam's disarmament record could equally be said of Bush's domestic record. He has given no evidence of progress. He must have much to hide.
Note From the Fray Editor:
New to The Fray?
The check marks you will see are my picks—posts I thought were smart or that kicked off a good discussion. The stars go with particular posters; they have earned them over time by regularly making quality posts (although, of course, the one you see may not be their best work). Some of these will show up in this space, or in "Fraywatch."
Tired of talking about the State of the Union and related subjects? Slate has a forum for nearly everything. Check the Fray topics page here for other fora, or mouse over the category list on the left to find another article.
Remember, the Fray works best when it's a discussion. Try reading some posts first and responding to them. Want to know if someone has responded to your post? If there's a + before the date, then you have a response (the number after your nickname tells you how many direct responses you have.) What's more, we've made it easier than ever to know when someone has answered you—simply sign up for Fray alerts here. Then, whenever someone answers you, you can receive a Messenger alert, an e-mail, or both.
Enjoy the Fray!
Your Fray Editor,
J.D. Connor
Independent Contractor
Notes From The Fray Editor:
AndrewLynch (see below) has already been remarkably gracious in defending himself; for example here. Geoff's post is much longer than I have room to quote; Larry points to the trouble of calculating budgetary effects when some programs are "10-year" initiatives and some are 1-year.
Remarks From The Fray:
As I was listening, I couldn't help but wonder: "What country have I been living in?" I didn't know he had accomplished all the things he said his administration had accomplished, nor was I aware of his sweeping plans to tackle every domestic and world woe from AIDS on the continent his administration is eyeing as a viable oil source to food, medicine, snazzy Italian shoes, and HBO for the survivors of his war on Iraq.
What a killer piece of PR. I tried to pretend I was a Middle American, how his words would ring in my ears, and was actually impressed by his strategists' attempts to make Bush sound like he was busy, busy, busy saving Americans while combatting evil with impressive math like 29,984 is the difference between 30,000 and 16. What magnificent spin, when you can take an insignificant UNMOVIC finding and turn it into a frightening 5-digit figure. That's remarkable.
But at the end of the day, nothing was revealed, nothing was put forward save the reputation of an unelected president and his arrogant, uncaring administration.
-- AndrewLynch
(To reply, click here.)
This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations. We will confront them with focus, and clarity, and courage.
This line pissed me off. Sorry. As a 25-year old, I'm just not a fan of deficit economics. I remember 1992, and I remember 1994... deficits reach a "tipping point" where they act as an albatross around the economy's neck. If you're a sixty-year old conservative now, you can have your tax break and your 4% spending increase, and your five simultaneous wars abroad all at the same time, because you're going to be dead by the time I get hit with the bill for your profligacy. The decision to fund America's priorities on layaway is selfish, and it's a betrayal of younger Americans who will inherit a government with staggering debts. You get lower taxes and higher services now. I get higher taxes and lower services tomorrow.
… Instead of gradually reducing the marriage penalty, we should do it now. Instead of slowly raising the child credit to $1,000, we should send the checks to American families now. In effect, our president is telling us that being married and having children ENTITLES us to a lower tax burden... and even a TAX PAY-OFF. "Send us the checks, Mr. President! We delivered the babies you asked for!" I find it nauseating. It was nauseating when Clinton started it, and it's getting worse. Are you a Conservative? Do you think the government should be interfering with your personal life? If not, then why should it be indulging in this social tinkering. Decisions to marry and decisions to have children are personal decisions. But the state is growing ever more involved with those decisions, and with throwing lucrative incentives to individuals to engage in them. Ten years ago, everyone was OUTRAGED that black mothers were getting larger welfare checks to help them deal with extra kids. But now the "soccer moms" are getting them, and it's just returning "their money." Even if the IRS' check is larger than their tax burden!
-- Geoff
(To reply, click here.)
(1/29)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Note From the Fray Editor:
New to The Fray?
The check marks you will see are my picks—posts I thought were smart or that kicked off a good discussion. The stars go with particular posters; they have earned them over time by regularly making quality posts (although, of course, the one you see may not be their best work). Some of these will show up in this space, or in "Fraywatch."
Tired of talking about the State of the Union and related subjects? Slate has a forum for nearly everything. Check the Fray topics page here for other fora, or mouse over the category list on the left to find another article.
Remember, the Fray works best when it's a discussion. Try reading some posts first and responding to them. Want to know if someone has responded to your post? If there's a + before the date, then you have a response (the number after your nickname tells you how many direct responses you have.) What's more, we've made it easier than ever to know when someone has answered you—simply sign up for Fray alerts here. Then, whenever someone answers you, you can receive a Messenger alert, an e-mail, or both.
Enjoy the Fray!
Your Fray Editor,
J.D. Connor
Independent Contractor
Notes From The Fray Editor:
AndrewLynch (see below) has already been remarkably gracious in defending himself; for example here. Geoff's post is much longer than I have room to quote; Larry points to the trouble of calculating budgetary effects when some programs are "10-year" initiatives and some are 1-year.
Remarks From The Fray:
As I was listening, I couldn't help but wonder: "What country have I been living in?" I didn't know he had accomplished all the things he said his administration had accomplished, nor was I aware of his sweeping plans to tackle every domestic and world woe from AIDS on the continent his administration is eyeing as a viable oil source to food, medicine, snazzy Italian shoes, and HBO for the survivors of his war on Iraq.
What a killer piece of PR. I tried to pretend I was a Middle American, how his words would ring in my ears, and was actually impressed by his strategists' attempts to make Bush sound like he was busy, busy, busy saving Americans while combatting evil with impressive math like 29,984 is the difference between 30,000 and 16. What magnificent spin, when you can take an insignificant UNMOVIC finding and turn it into a frightening 5-digit figure. That's remarkable.
But at the end of the day, nothing was revealed, nothing was put forward save the reputation of an unelected president and his arrogant, uncaring administration.
-- AndrewLynch
(To reply, click here.)
This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations. We will confront them with focus, and clarity, and courage.
This line pissed me off. Sorry. As a 25-year old, I'm just not a fan of deficit economics. I remember 1992, and I remember 1994... deficits reach a "tipping point" where they act as an albatross around the economy's neck. If you're a sixty-year old conservative now, you can have your tax break and your 4% spending increase, and your five simultaneous wars abroad all at the same time, because you're going to be dead by the time I get hit with the bill for your profligacy. The decision to fund America's priorities on layaway is selfish, and it's a betrayal of younger Americans who will inherit a government with staggering debts. You get lower taxes and higher services now. I get higher taxes and lower services tomorrow.
… Instead of gradually reducing the marriage penalty, we should do it now. Instead of slowly raising the child credit to $1,000, we should send the checks to American families now. In effect, our president is telling us that being married and having children ENTITLES us to a lower tax burden... and even a TAX PAY-OFF. "Send us the checks, Mr. President! We delivered the babies you asked for!" I find it nauseating. It was nauseating when Clinton started it, and it's getting worse. Are you a Conservative? Do you think the government should be interfering with your personal life? If not, then why should it be indulging in this social tinkering. Decisions to marry and decisions to have children are personal decisions. But the state is growing ever more involved with those decisions, and with throwing lucrative incentives to individuals to engage in them. Ten years ago, everyone was OUTRAGED that black mothers were getting larger welfare checks to help them deal with extra kids. But now the "soccer moms" are getting them, and it's just returning "their money." Even if the IRS' check is larger than their tax burden!
-- Geoff
(To reply, click here.)
(1/29)