Context

[This is a guest article, written about the State of the Union address on my request by my friend William. I'll let him introduce himself. -kat]

Allow me to present some personal information, that you may interpret this article in some context. My name is William Keith; at the time I write this, I am a 26-year-old doctoral student in mathematics, raised in Houston, Texas and currently in Pennsylvania. I consider myself fairly moderate and independent, trying to keep an open mind when presented with political issues and candidates. I have been asked to provide a guest article detailing my impressions of the 2004 State of the Union address.

Context is exceedingly important when considering political events, and, make no mistake, the State of the Union address is a purely political event. Under color of a short phrase in the Constitution demanding that the President keep Congress informed of affairs in the nation and make policy recommendations, Presidents since FDR have presented a year's worth of policy objectives, with Presidents after Truman bringing their message not only to the Congress but to the people. More recently, the message has been almost solely aimed at the people, as the President and Congress communicate year-round through many other channels.

This year is an American presidential election year, and this first-term President's political objectives are aimed at re-election. This year's State of the Union was additionally scheduled to interrupt press coverage of opposition candidate selection, although in fairness the selection of available dates is limited by tradition. With this context in mind to begin, let us turn now to consider this year's State of the Union.

Tradition usually indicates that the President will begin the State of the Union with reference to domestic issues, a nod to the Constitutional purpose of the address. This was overturned this year, with the President playing to his political strong suit, defense, for his opening. A brief mention of the economy was immediately followed by a thorough explication of security issues. I found this to be further evidence of the strongly political nature of this year's agenda, a theme which echoed throughout the speech. Though verbal nods were made to bipartisanism, the vast majority of the speech was devoted to introducing and advancing the President's personal political agenda and that of his party.

The first section of the State of the Union was primarily defense. With dual meaning: not only was the subject national defense, but I got the impression that the President was seeking to defend and justify the previous years' military actions. He cited progress in Afghanistan, such as its recent constitution-building advances, followed by expressing pleasure at Libya's motions toward disarmament, which he attributed roundaboutly to his administration's aggressive defense posture. He cited several post-facto reasons for going to war, including ceasing Iraqi atrocities, buttressing the U.N., and curtailing WMD programs, avoiding mention of seeking solid weapons finds.

The section was short on specifics: he sought an expansion of the Voice of American radio program and the inclusion of a TV channel in the propaganda effort, which I found a reasonable proposal.

I considered curious a moment which occurred early in the section when he asked that the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, passed with the caveat that they expire later, be made permanent. Normally, in a State of the Union, the opposition party applauds lines of general interest and triumphalism, sitting quietly as the President outlines programs favorable to his own party and occasionally cheering when the President nods to the opposition's successes (this latter failing to happen, by my observation, at all during this speech). When the President cites something he considers a negative occurrence, it might seem uncivil to take joy in his discomfiture. When the President discussed and praised the Act, he was clearly seeking that it be made permanent. Preparatory to this, he mentioned that its provisions were due to expire... whereupon members of the opposition (or perhaps their guests -- the camera was not on them, and the effect was scattered) applauded! I think this outburst may be considered evidence of the polarization of the night, that the opposition's people were thus emboldened.

One moment I found discomfiting was when it seemed to me that the President denigrated the rule of law. He stated:

"I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime - a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, and tried, and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers."

It is justly debatable whether the American social, judicial and legal traditions of wartime should apply in the War on Terror, an effort likely to last years or decades, in a vein similar to the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty. What I found most disturbing was that this was apparently a direct rebuttal of those in the opposition who had asked that American prisoners in the War on Terror, such as those held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, be given access to the American judicial system to have their cases heard. The President in this passage was not advocating greater emphasis on military action at the expense of diplomacy -- he directly justified his Administration's judicial behavior toward detainees by deriding the ability of the American legal system to judge their cases and the general strength of the judicial branch to deal with terrorists.

The President then turned to domestic issues, beginning with the economy. He said the economy was "strong and getting stronger," citing a string of measures which indicate economic strength, some of which, such as home ownership, are indeed strong indicators of general comfort level for the bulk of Americans. Listeners familiar with the President's economic activities of the previous years, often presented under the moniker "Jobs and Growth," might have noticed the exclusion of an important set of economic indicators, unemployment and job creation, which at this time are known to be performing poorly -- unemployment is high (in fairness, high relative to the years just previous, in which it was at record lows), and jobs have been under net destruction in America over the years of this administration to date. (He mentioned the number of jobs rising -- technically true, with some 1,000 jobs said to have been created in December. Each month's number in this statistic is typically revised downward by several thousand after several months.) If the President's goal is presenting a fair picture of the state of economy and outlining programs to improve its state, it would seem desirable to include these shadows on what at the moment is the bare beginning of a sunnier outlook; if the President's goal is to win re-election, his interest lies in painting as rosy a picture as he can muster. It appears to me that he sought the latter.

Carrying forward with the assumption that his assessment of the economy was true, the President attributed this economic strength to his administration's signature economic issue, tax cuts (constantly phrased as "tax relief," in an effort to portray the belief that taxes burden citizens). These tax cuts, like the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, were passed under the assumption that they would expire in several years. This expiration allowed calculations of their effect on indicators such as the budget deficit to be minimized, making it easier to persuade Americans to support them, and to pass them through Congress. Tonight, the President sought repeal of their expiration, deliberately phrasing the expiration of tax cuts as a tax increase. (The Democratic Party dreads being depicted as in favor of higher taxes. One may seriously question, however, whether expiration of a tax cut may fairly be labelled a tax increase.)

Repeal of expiration played a role later in the speech, when the President claimed that the budget deficit (presumably under the ten-year projections usually used for previous fiscal policy debates) generated under his Administration could be cut in half by elimination of wasteful spending, which he directed Congress to curtail. I found this an amazing claim, since repeal of expiration would vastly increase the calculated budget deficit, requiring truly deep cuts in order to support the claim.

Though the education passage was short, folded into the economic discussion, it included several firm proposals, including assistance for Advanced Placement programs in some schools, larger Pell Grants, and increased support for community colleges. Many of the proposals here I thought were eminently supportable. I found it quite interesting that the Democrats in the chamber loudly applauded these moves, making somewhat more of a showing, to my estimation, than the President's own party.

Solid proposals were far more numerous in this part of the speech, offering a clearer picture of the President's ideas on the domestic front. A note of compromise was sounded when he discussed his "bracero" program granting temporary status to foreign workers that would come to the U.S. (almost all from Mexico and Central America, by sheer consideration of geography), rejecting complete amnesty for illegal immigrants. Most other proposals were aimed firmly at the President's typical constituents, and few if any would find favor with most Democrats. I found myself agreeing with some, such as increased funding for drug testing. Others I found objectionable, such as increased funding for abstinence programs (which I consider of severely questionable efficacy).

Near the end, three proposals seemed clearly calculated and positioned for political benefit. Two sought the conservative base the President cultures, while the third attempted to salve wounds made by those that come before.

On the two, I have severe doubts . The one most clearly supported was his request for Congress to codify his "faith-based" initiative from executive decree into law. Unusual rhetoric marked the other: the President entered the current fray over the creation of non-marriage unions with legal status for homosexuals in some states, whose legal status across state lines is currently a subject of much debate. What I believe to be a small minority of Americans are pushing for a Constitutional amendment which will finalize the issue by removing the matter from states' arenas, codifying the status of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution. The President, most curiously, did not strictly say that he supported such an amendment, nor even call for Congress to pass one. Rather, he said that under vaguely defined circumstances it might become necessary for the government to call for such an amendment. This seemed to me to be an attempt to appease one group without angering another, and as often happens in such cases one suspects that neither will be much pleased.

The President's final solid proposal was a $300 million "prisoner re-entry" initiative, which could reasonably find bipartisan support. It seemed obviously a fig leaf which failed to mask the overall partisan tone of the evening.

At the conclusion of the 2004 State of the Union address, I felt that I was left not much more informed about the state of the Union, but clearly informed about the President's legislative and executive agenda for the year. This being somewhat as I expected (though less than I had hoped), I was little moved. On the whole, the partisan content disturbed me and provoked consideration, the austere pageantry amused me and aroused respect, and, set in the context of this political year, I felt that the time spent listening politely was well worth it. I have been signalled and in some cases warned. In the end, it is the least I can ask.

Posted by katster at January 21, 2004 05:49 PM

---