SOTU Thoughts

The single best moment of this speech wasn’t the President’s.

It was the moment when the mother of Sgt. Norwood gave the dogtag of her fallen son to a woman representing the country she liberated. I don’t know if that moment was planned in some way or not, but it was an indelible moment. It was a symbol of what the sacrifices of our soldiers has been all about. They’re not dying for oil, for empire, or for some family argument. They were dying to give freedom to an entire nation and make our nation safer. That moment said that and more, which is why it was the greatest moment of the speech.

The President himself seemed calm, determined, and in command. He was on tonight, and looked Presidential. In terms of appearances, that’s exactly what he seemed to do.

The Democrats’ jeers on Social Security seemed petty, partisan, and all too willing to ignore what will be a major fiscal crisis. The most optimistic estimates of Social Security indicate that by 2042 the Social Security system will only be able to pay out $0.70 for every $1 in promised benefits. As Bill Kristol notes on FNC, if you owe someone money and can only pay a part of them, you’d declare bankruptcy — so why make Social Security different?

The biggest problem with this speech is that 2/3rds of it was a laundry list of policies with no overriding theme to tie it all together. Bush has an excellent theme of the “ownership society” — yet he never even used those words in the speech. Maybe that term didn’t test well, but I think it could do very well to illustrate what’s behind Bush’s plans. This is all about empowering the American people to make choices for themselves.

I’d also like Bush to have brought up his space initiatives, but that’s probably not something that would have fit into the speech.

When Bush got into foreign policy, he gained the strength of conviction that has been a hallmark of his previous addresses. He put Saudi Arabia on notice, put political pressure on Syria, and stood with the people of Iran in fighting the tyrannical regime in Tehran. That was classic Bush.

At the same time, I’m beginning to understand Peggy Noonan’s concerns about rhetorical overreach. Can we end tyranny in the next four years? As much as we should strive to end tyranny everywhere, we cannot change the human condition. As long as evil exists, tyranny will exist. We can never eradicate that, no matter how hard we try. We can fight for what’s right and continue to carry the banner of freedom, but there will always be those who would try to subjugate others for their own gain.

Overall, I’ll give Bush a strong B+/leaning towards an A-. He was on point, well-spoken, and had some good lines. The moment with the family of Sgt. Norwood was an indelible and beautiful one. The only thing that hurt Bush’s speech was the lack of an overriding theme in the domestic policy section that made it seem to meander — although that’s a common flaw in State of the Union addresses.

Bush has set the tone and set some very ambitious objectives for his Administration and the Congress in the coming year. We’ll see over the next 12 months to see how many of these he can achieve.