|
EDITOR'S
NOTE:
Read NRO's instant analysis of the State of the Union
address, from Kate O'Beirne, Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru, Jonah Goldberg,
Rod Dreher, and more in "The
Corner."
Michael
Knox Beran, author of The
Last Patrician: Bobby Kennedy and the End of American Aristocracy
It was a good
speech, in places a great one. I salute the commander-in-chief.
At the same time, I raise two concerns about his domestic policy.
1. It is always
an interesting, and sometimes a brilliant, tactic to poach your
opponent's most attractive ideas and make them your own. Thus, the
president called for a patient's bill of rights, the expansion of
federal education programs, a more intensive regulation of the capital
markets. This on top of the federalization of the airport-security
forces. Popular measures, all. But the game is a dangerous one;
a politician makes concessions in order to flourish politically;
but such concessions are never without cost, and in this case will
place additional burdens on an economy that is already being asked
to bear the expense of war. A nation can enjoy it all for a time
— guns and public butter, legions and state-sponsored circuses;
but such indulgence must often be expiated by a hard penance; and
a bout of reckless legislative gorging may contribute to years of
economic lassitude.
2. To me the
most distinctive thing about President Bush's program of Compassionate
Conservatism has always been its skepticism towards the older models
of state-subsidized caring. Compassionate Conservatism meant allowing
the nation to tap those private pools of compassion that have for
too long been bottled up by misguided government policy. It meant
school liberation — giving parents greater opportunity to choose
schools for their kids that do the best job of shaping character.
It meant finding new ways to make use of the abilities of those
possessed of spiritual vocations — people whose powers are
often overlooked in a too complacently secular world. It meant cutting
out bureaucratic middlemen — the toll-collectors and timeservers
of the nanny state — through the use of vouchers in areas like
education and welfare services. I am not familiar enough with the
details of the president's proposed service corps to offer any worthwhile
critique of its strengths and weaknesses; but I worry whether something
of the spirit of Compassionate Conservatism is being sacrificed
here; whether we are returning to the idea of the state-sponsored
orchestration of virtue, and turning away from the work of strengthening
private networks of love.
Peter
Berkowitz, professor at George Mason University School
of Law & contributing editor at The New Republic. He
is the author of Virtue
and the Making of Modern Liberalism.
The president's
State of the Union address always presents a promising spectacle:
the grand chamber in the Capitol building, the annual gathering
of the leaders of the separate powers of government, the well-choreographed
display of the best bipartisan good manners. This time the president
lived up to the promise.
Gone was the
irrepressible frat-boy smirk. In its place, punctuating his sentences
and accenting his silences, was a mellow smile heavy with conviction
and concern.
The president
began and ended with the war on terror. His message was that our
cause is just, our achievement since September 11 — liberating
Afghanistan from tyrannical Taliban rule and destroying the al Qaeda
terrorists camps that the Taliban harbored — monumental, and
our work-fighting terrorism around the world and opposing states
such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea that continue to harbor it —
only just begun.
He called for
the same unity and resolve in facing the challenges at home that
we had displayed in fighting the enemy abroad. We must increase
spending on defense and homeland security. We must extend unemployment
benefits and health-care coverage. We must create new jobs. We must
improve our children's education. We must stimulate the economy.
We must hold our corporations to the highest standards. We must
protect workers 401(k) and pension plans.
In all this,
the president spoke as a conservative Republican, a "proud
member" of his party. But his speech also reflected a refined
understanding of the public good. Government — limited but
nevertheless government — for this conservative Republican
was part of the solution. Building on President Clinton's AmeriCorps,
President Bush introduced the new USA Freedom Corps, whose aim is
to harness the spirit of public service in the American people for
homeland security, for rebuilding broken communities in the United
States, and for offering assistance to the needy abroad.
In particular,
the president emphasized the importance of encouraging "development
and education and opportunity in the Islamic world." This is
good politics: Poverty, ignorance, and hopelessness are breeding
grounds for violence. And sound principle: Liberty and justice as
our nation understands them are good for people everywhere. And
in the execution, fraught with uncertainty and risk.
Today it will
be business as usual. Last night the president forcefully reminded
us that it is a crucial part of our nation's business to honor the
promise of "freedom and the dignity of every life."
Victor Davis Hanson, NRO contributor
& author, most recently, of Carnage
and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power
Presidents
routinely employ platitudes that Americans are good, strong, and
stand for freedom and liberty. But rarely do any marry that obligatory
reassurance with specific references to what and who we are not.
President Bush, however, explicitly cited Iraq, Iran, and North
Korea as the new "Axis." Last night he also condemned
Hezbollah and Hamas by name, and damned our enemies with the vocabulary
of confidence and honesty — "They were as wrong as they
were evil" — rather than Clintonian euphemism. The world
has changed since September 11.
For over a
decade Americans have watched as unelected thugs and wretched societies
warned us that we were both weak and decadent — and so could
do nothing against either outlaw regimes or the worldwide terrorists
they sponsor. In answer, Mr. Bush now tells the nation that, in
fact, we are as powerful as we are decent — and then went on
to enumerate the age-old values of the West like free markets, personal
liberty, religious tolerance, and consensual government. He senses
a great yearning on the part of the American people for transcendence
and at last to tend to things too long neglected — and to do
so deliberately, vigorously, but also without either braggadocio
or swagger. And so armed with that conviction, an American president
in the midst of recession quite unapologetically promises that a
long-overdue and worldwide reckoning is on the horizon against medieval
iniquity — as deadly as it will be just.
In this age
of cynicism and irony, neither presidents nor Americans are supposed
to think, much less talk, in moral absolutes like these. But just
as Mr. Bush himself does best when he is at odds with his safe and
reassuring patrician, New England, and corporate ancestry —
instead emphasizing his new evangelical faith, sometime reckless
Texas affinities, and unrepentant popular tastes — so too he
has discovered that his country resonates when it follows its own
historical sense of right rather than seeks approval from sophisticated
cynics abroad.
Saddam Hussein,
Yasser Arafat, and the mullahs in Iran — and perhaps even the
high commissioners of the EU — all I think don't quite yet
get the new mood of the American people, one which Mr. Bush is brilliantly
reflecting, rather than himself merely creating. After two-kilotons
and 3,000 dead, we are now in the age of "Let's Roll,"
rather than "I Feel Your Pain" and "It Takes a Village."
And last night we saw that we have the right man at the right time
for the right cause.
Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing
editor. Ledeen holds the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise
Institute & is author of, among others, Tocqueville
on American Character & Machiavelli
on Modern Leadership
I am still
pinching myself to make sure I'm not dreaming it all up. He gets
better and better, he wears so well, he's really us. I'm so grateful
for him, and especially when I try to imagine Al Gore standing up
there.
The main thing,
it seems to me, is that this was a very radical speech. Very radical,
and you can be sure that the Left got it. He challenged their carefully
crafted culture, head on. No more "if it feels good, do it."
Now it's time for the American genius for dealing with our common
problems.
This may have
been the first time in American history that an intense internal
debate over foreign policy was settled in a State of the Union speech.
For many months now, the administration has been divided between
those who believed we could make a deal with the Iranian regime,
and those who insisted that we had to fight the mullahs. That dispute
was settled tonight, when the president correctly and forcefully
denounced the unelected rulers of Iran who ignore the desires of
the Iranian people for freedom. And as between those who have been
arguing for a "go slow" approach to Iraq and those who
have been insisting that we cannot wait because time then works
in favor of our enemies, the president eloquently rejected the go-slowers.
And while he was at it (you just gotta love this guy, he really
goes for it), he delivered a few zingers to our "timid"
allies. I trust the French translation will be accurate.
No doubt some
will bemoan the omission of some program or other, but I was grateful
for the lack of the usual laundry list. He understands that he can't
mobilize the country over dozens of bills and amendments; he wants
to pin his congressional opponents between the hard place of his
astonishingly steady popularity and the rock of the urgency of the
moment.
Those who niggle
and whine will have missed the essence of a great speech, which
is that the president laid claim not only to political leadership,
but to cultural leadership as well. The courage of his foreign policy
is of a piece with his insistence that America has a core mission
— the "vision thing" as his dad once dismissively
termed it, and that mission is about freedom, both for us and for
all those who wish to join with us.
He's right.
That's what we're all about.
Mark R. Levin, NRO contributing
editor
George W. Bush
is a great war president. On Sept. 20, he told Congress, the America
people, and the world that he would lead our nation into battle
against terrorists and the outlaw regimes that harbor them. And
he is doing so with extraordinary competence and resolve.
The battle
of Afghanistan is essentially over. This is a remarkable achievement
when one considers that a mere four months ago, the U.S. had no
military presence there, controlled no forward bases, and lacked
sufficient intelligence assets in the area. Mr. Bush says what he
means and delivers on what he says. Every reputable opinion poll
shows that the president has earned the public's trust, confidence,
and respect. The American people know a leader when they see one.
On Tuesday
night, President Bush reported that he's already taking the war
to terrorists in Somalia and the Philippines. He pointedly warned
North Korea, Iran, and especially Iraq that they have much to fear
from the U.S. He also made clear to Yasser Arafat just days ago
that he was no longer trusted to advance peace in the Middle East.
So much has changed since Sept. 11, and all to the good.
After a decade
of severe budget cuts, Mr. Bush proposed spending $48 billion more
on defense, the largest increase in the Pentagon's budget since
the Reagan presidency. Yes, Mr. Bush acknowledged the deficit will
subsequently grow, but he made no apologies for it. The president
also renewed his commitment to a strategic-defense shield to protect
the U.S. from a nuclear-missile attack.
I am, however,
frustrated with the president's rather confusing domestic agenda.
On the one hand he offers bold proposals, including privatizing
part of Social Security and making permanent the tax cuts that were
passed last year. On the other hand, he urges new health-care entitlements
and a larger federal role in education. I reject the idea that a
man who is so principled and forthcoming about matters of peace
and war is, at the same time, expedient and cynical about matters
of domestic governance.
Mr. Bush's
speech makes clear that he is not so much committed to reducing
the reach of the welfare state as he is to making it more responsive
to consumers. He believes Social Security should be reformed to
create investment options, not to limit the size of the federal
government. He supports modest tax cuts to stimulate economic growth,
not to limit federal spending. And he proposes as part of his agenda
a renewed effort to enact additional health-care entitlements, which
addresses a perceived consumer demand or need, but which will clearly
expand the reach of government.
None of this
diminishes in any way Mr. Bush's truly exceptional statesmanship
in carrying out his primary responsibility to the American people,
i.e., ensuring their defense against foreign enemies. And it is
for this reason he will be counted among this country's great presidents.
David Limbaugh, syndicated columnist
& lawyer. Limbaugh is author of Absolute
Power, about the Clinton-Reno Justice Department.
What jumped
out at me most as I watched the President's speech was his character
and leadership demonstrated, respectively, by the continuity of
his message and his patience and resolve in fulfilling his objectives.
As we listened
to his priorities we were reminded that, but for the adjustments
born from the exigencies of war, his agenda remains the same.
While it could
be said that he proposed a laundry list of action items, very few
of them were new. His list, unlike Clinton's, was not a basket of
goodies for every new conceivable constituent.
He trumpeted
the same themes he promoted during the campaign: tax reform, education,
free trade, energy dependency, rebuilding our defenses, missile
defense, partial privatization of Social Security, faith-based initiatives,
prescription drugs and life.
And as for
the war, we got more of the same, a marked continuity in his plan.
He told us from the outset that it would be a long war, that it
was between good and evil, that it would be fought on many different
fronts (financial, intelligence, diplomatic, military, etc.), that
some of our actions would be highly visible and some would be clandestine,
that we would pursue terrorists everywhere and any nations that
sponsor them together with those hostile nations who are developing
weapons of mass destruction. He reiterated every one of those goals
tonight, and if anything, ratcheted up his commitment to achieve
them.
This continuity
begets predictability, which begets reliability, which begets public
confidence and assurance, which are vital during these times.
Underlying
every word he uttered was the theme: we can count on this president.
Peter Robinson, host of Uncommon
Knowledge (PBS) & author of It's
My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP
Two-thirds
of a marvelous speech.
At the beginning
and end of the address, when the president spoke about the war on
terrorism, the speech was well crafted, his delivery composed, energetic,
and confident.
But in the
middle, when the president spoke about domestic policy, the speech
degenerated into a mere grab bag of initiatives — unimaginative
initiatives at that — while his delivery grew uneven. As the
president urged Congress to demonstrate the same bipartisanship
in domestic policy that it had displayed in supporting the war,
Republicans rose to give him a series of ovations while the Democrats
remained in their seats, stony-faced. The president permitted himself
to look almost annoyed.
President Bush
clearly prefers the role of world leader to that of partisan combatant.
Yet, as the Democrats demonstrated tonight when they sat on their
hands, politics is back. The president should welcome the return
of open competition between our two great parties — then wade
right into it. A good first step? Now that he has signed Teddy Kennedy's
fiasco of education bill, the president should go right back to
advocating the school-choice measures that Kennedy blocked.
|
