Thursday, February 03, 2005
Speech Review: State of the Union 2005
Here at Your Thoughts Exactly, we never want to be accused of disappointing our readership, so when I saw a lonely anonymous poster asking for a post about the State of the Union address, I complied.
Let me preface this by telling you that I didn't actually watch the speech. I read it off CNN.com, and I'll break it down the same way they did. I guess I won't be able to tell you how convincing he was, but the content is what's important, right?
Economy:
Bush says the things about government spending that we all want to hear, but that none of us really believe. Is he really going to be more fiscally responsible? If he really wanted to balance the budget, he wouldn't have given everyone a tax cut; instead, he should have cut the programs to make the money first. As for education, well, I think every single president could say that they gave more money to education. It's sort of like saying "Technology advanced a lot in my term." Sure, it did, but did you really have anything to do with it? Did it advance at a higher rate than usual? I'm not criticizing Bush for this because basically every president has to say things like this, but there's not too much to talk about here.
One interesting tidbit is that he makes an offhand reference to nuclear energy. Nuclear power has gotten a really bad name, but I think it's probably our best option for energy over the next few decades. Sure, the byproduct is nuclear waste, but isn't that better than massive amounts of pollution? On one hand, you get a small, containable waste product that no one knows how to clean up, and on the other hand, you get a global waste product that no one knows how to control or clean up. In fact, nuclear energy is probably the most environmentally friendly energy we have.
Social Security:
Clearly this is a big part of Bush's agenda over the next term. This part of the speech is interesting because first he's trying to convince you it's a big problem, and next he's trying to convince you that his is the best solution. Sort of like an exterminator salesman. I admit I don't know all the specifics of his plan, but all it really sounds like he's doing is rolling us off Social Security and into government-controlled (at least partially) IRAs. Not a terrible plan, but it still doesn't really change the fact that over the next few years the system will stay the same, leaving us working folk to foot the bill. I don't mind that tremendously, but we'll see. The liberal in me thinks we should just cut off social security for the wealthy, and increase taxes on the wealthy paying into social security. That way we can screw them both ways! Of course that would be tremendously unpopular with Bush's constituency, so I think we can safely say that ain't happening.
As for Bush's social agenda, let me say: blech. I don't need to say any more about the marriage amendment other than in 50 years, we'll all look back and this will be the stain on his record. And stem cell research. Bush also goes on to take a couple swipes at 'activist judges', saying they're there to interpret the law, not legislate it. Right. By having the judges actually be a check on the other branches, they're taking valuable power away from Congress and the President! Shame on you, judicial branch.
As for faith-based initiatives, I have no problem with our government supporting them, but that shouldn't be your agenda: "We don't have a good inner-city help program... let's just give some money to churches." You don't want to compete with other programs, but there's clearly some middle ground here. How about running complementary programs? Or better yet, give the money to the cities and states and have them sort it out. And they will sort it out, assuming they know their locale better than the feds do.
The war on terror:
Ah, the war on terror. The Iraq elections went well, and that was probably a boost for Bush's ego. Now, I don't like Bush for many reasons, but I've never questioned his will to improve America. Invading Iraq as part of a larger war on terror seems ridiculous to most of us, but as Marmar points out, in the long run, defeating terrorism requires regime, political, and cultural changes. In this context, a lot of the things he's doing (like promoting nuclear energy) make more sense: get the US off Middle Eastern oil dependency, while also attempting to instill democratic governments in the least stable countries. And sure, if their democracy fails, at least you have thousands of soldiers there to discourage other countries from 'trying anything'.
But I guess that's being a little simplistic. Do I think Bush wants the Iraq democracy to succeed? Yes, I'm sure he does, very badly. But I think what led him to war in the first place was a simple risk-reward ratio. At best, Iraq becomes a US ally in the Mideast. At worst, we've destroyed them and made them into an annexed US territory. When framed like that, it's no wonder he chose to invade. Of course, he did it under totally false pretenses and without the moral high ground, since they were not at war with us (nor threatening us.) To then take the moral high ground anyway and say we were trying to instill democracy rings a little hollow.
But I don't want to pass judgment on the Iraq war just yet. It's too soon, and the stakes are too high. We're looking at a window of years before we can say whether it is good or bad. Sure, thousands of lives have been lost, and many innocents have died, but if it speeds up world peace by decades, will it have been worth it? I'm not going to sit here and say something is only good if it's done for the right reasons. And I won't say anything about whether democracy can be forced upon a country. Bush wants us to think that world democracy (and specifically middle eastern) is the only path the lasting peace and freedom from terrorism. And he might be right.
If it sounds like I've softened on Bush, it's because I probably have, at least until he starts pushing the Defense of Marriage act. But is he really laying down the groundwork for democracy in the Mideast, or the groundwork for bed of anti-American sentiment? And can you really make peace by waging war? I would have been skeptical a few months ago, but maybe you can; and from what I've seen from Iraq so far has been enough to make me hope it will work. I hope he's not so crazy that he decides to invade Iran (he made a reference to it), or that future presidents won't take this as a green light for unilateralism. It's like watching someone with a gambling problem... you hope they win, but not if it means they're going to keep doing it until they lose.
All in all, a pretty good speech from a pretty inarticulate man. But clearly, we are not going to be talking about Social Security, tort reform, or educational issues when we think about W in the years to come. He's betting his entire legacy and agenda on the Iraq war and the war on terrorism. Let's just hope he doesn't take the US down with him if it comes up tails.
Grade: B+
Let me preface this by telling you that I didn't actually watch the speech. I read it off CNN.com, and I'll break it down the same way they did. I guess I won't be able to tell you how convincing he was, but the content is what's important, right?
Economy:
Bush says the things about government spending that we all want to hear, but that none of us really believe. Is he really going to be more fiscally responsible? If he really wanted to balance the budget, he wouldn't have given everyone a tax cut; instead, he should have cut the programs to make the money first. As for education, well, I think every single president could say that they gave more money to education. It's sort of like saying "Technology advanced a lot in my term." Sure, it did, but did you really have anything to do with it? Did it advance at a higher rate than usual? I'm not criticizing Bush for this because basically every president has to say things like this, but there's not too much to talk about here.
One interesting tidbit is that he makes an offhand reference to nuclear energy. Nuclear power has gotten a really bad name, but I think it's probably our best option for energy over the next few decades. Sure, the byproduct is nuclear waste, but isn't that better than massive amounts of pollution? On one hand, you get a small, containable waste product that no one knows how to clean up, and on the other hand, you get a global waste product that no one knows how to control or clean up. In fact, nuclear energy is probably the most environmentally friendly energy we have.
Social Security:
Clearly this is a big part of Bush's agenda over the next term. This part of the speech is interesting because first he's trying to convince you it's a big problem, and next he's trying to convince you that his is the best solution. Sort of like an exterminator salesman. I admit I don't know all the specifics of his plan, but all it really sounds like he's doing is rolling us off Social Security and into government-controlled (at least partially) IRAs. Not a terrible plan, but it still doesn't really change the fact that over the next few years the system will stay the same, leaving us working folk to foot the bill. I don't mind that tremendously, but we'll see. The liberal in me thinks we should just cut off social security for the wealthy, and increase taxes on the wealthy paying into social security. That way we can screw them both ways! Of course that would be tremendously unpopular with Bush's constituency, so I think we can safely say that ain't happening.
As for Bush's social agenda, let me say: blech. I don't need to say any more about the marriage amendment other than in 50 years, we'll all look back and this will be the stain on his record. And stem cell research. Bush also goes on to take a couple swipes at 'activist judges', saying they're there to interpret the law, not legislate it. Right. By having the judges actually be a check on the other branches, they're taking valuable power away from Congress and the President! Shame on you, judicial branch.
As for faith-based initiatives, I have no problem with our government supporting them, but that shouldn't be your agenda: "We don't have a good inner-city help program... let's just give some money to churches." You don't want to compete with other programs, but there's clearly some middle ground here. How about running complementary programs? Or better yet, give the money to the cities and states and have them sort it out. And they will sort it out, assuming they know their locale better than the feds do.
The war on terror:
Ah, the war on terror. The Iraq elections went well, and that was probably a boost for Bush's ego. Now, I don't like Bush for many reasons, but I've never questioned his will to improve America. Invading Iraq as part of a larger war on terror seems ridiculous to most of us, but as Marmar points out, in the long run, defeating terrorism requires regime, political, and cultural changes. In this context, a lot of the things he's doing (like promoting nuclear energy) make more sense: get the US off Middle Eastern oil dependency, while also attempting to instill democratic governments in the least stable countries. And sure, if their democracy fails, at least you have thousands of soldiers there to discourage other countries from 'trying anything'.
But I guess that's being a little simplistic. Do I think Bush wants the Iraq democracy to succeed? Yes, I'm sure he does, very badly. But I think what led him to war in the first place was a simple risk-reward ratio. At best, Iraq becomes a US ally in the Mideast. At worst, we've destroyed them and made them into an annexed US territory. When framed like that, it's no wonder he chose to invade. Of course, he did it under totally false pretenses and without the moral high ground, since they were not at war with us (nor threatening us.) To then take the moral high ground anyway and say we were trying to instill democracy rings a little hollow.
But I don't want to pass judgment on the Iraq war just yet. It's too soon, and the stakes are too high. We're looking at a window of years before we can say whether it is good or bad. Sure, thousands of lives have been lost, and many innocents have died, but if it speeds up world peace by decades, will it have been worth it? I'm not going to sit here and say something is only good if it's done for the right reasons. And I won't say anything about whether democracy can be forced upon a country. Bush wants us to think that world democracy (and specifically middle eastern) is the only path the lasting peace and freedom from terrorism. And he might be right.
If it sounds like I've softened on Bush, it's because I probably have, at least until he starts pushing the Defense of Marriage act. But is he really laying down the groundwork for democracy in the Mideast, or the groundwork for bed of anti-American sentiment? And can you really make peace by waging war? I would have been skeptical a few months ago, but maybe you can; and from what I've seen from Iraq so far has been enough to make me hope it will work. I hope he's not so crazy that he decides to invade Iran (he made a reference to it), or that future presidents won't take this as a green light for unilateralism. It's like watching someone with a gambling problem... you hope they win, but not if it means they're going to keep doing it until they lose.
All in all, a pretty good speech from a pretty inarticulate man. But clearly, we are not going to be talking about Social Security, tort reform, or educational issues when we think about W in the years to come. He's betting his entire legacy and agenda on the Iraq war and the war on terrorism. Let's just hope he doesn't take the US down with him if it comes up tails.
Grade: B+
# posted by Stuart @ 2:09 PM 
