By Caitlin Hall
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Thursday January 30, 2003
Tuesday night at 6:50, I was on fire, full of vinegar and adrenaline. It was ten minutes till the start of the State of the Union address, and it was open season for conservatives. I was David: poised, rock in hand, turning to hurl it at Goliath. I was the righteous white-hatted sheriff, staring down the outlaw who had rolled into town. My fingers were itching at the holsters, daring him to draw. I was invincible. Yet an hour or so later, I was surprisingly · chill.
Don't get me wrong ÷ there was more than enough criticism, annoyance and sarcasm to go around. But the fact that I sat down so bloodthirsty and stood up so tranquil is testimony to the power of the State of the Union address.
A president's approval ratings always go up after such an address ÷ always ÷ and they do so because it's so damn hard to disagree when listening to one. They are, after all, rhetorically brilliant, strategically nuanced and philosophically comprehensive. They are the result of weeks or months of concerted work to do one thing and one thing only: to make it sound like the president's agenda is absolutely in sync with that of every single moderate voter in America ÷ a tricky task by anyone's standards.
So how did this year's speech fare? In two words: disconcertingly well. The best thing Bush could have done ÷ at least in the eyes of Democrats viciously clawing at the White House door ÷ would have been to present a broadly conservative agenda. Instead, he drew liberally from the liberals and more conservatively from the conservatives.
A quick rundown reveals the inconsistencies that may yet doom the nation to another term:
Hip, hip, hooray!
There was, admittedly, a lot to like in the address. Bush's proposal for reducing dependence on foreign oil ÷ the development and proliferation of environmentally friendly hydrogen fuel cells ÷ was surprising and much appreciated. The allocation of substantial funds for substance abuse treatment programs was a welcome divergence from the administration's purely-supply-side treatment of the war on drugs.
The president's support of faith-based social welfare programs offered a financially responsible way to extend aid to a larger segment of the population while utilizing the resources already established within communities. Additionally, the devotion he demonstrated to battling the AIDS epidemic in Africa ÷ an epidemic made possible partly by egregious U.S. pharmaceutical patents ÷ was truly remarkable. If committed to legislation, it would surely be one of the largest humanitarian aid efforts in our nation's history.
Boo, hiss!
Bush's accelerated tax cut plan tops the list of bad ideas for 2003. The president's logic ÷ "if this tax relief is good for Americans three, or five or seven years from now, it is even better for Americans today" ÷ doesn't hold water in a nation battling a mushrooming deficit and rapidly-rising military expenditures. Additionally, his assertion that an average tax cut of $1,100 means the average family would see their federal income taxes drop to $50 from nearly $1,200 is absurd, to which any student who's taken an introductory course in statistics can attest.
His treatment of healthcare ÷ the mere mention of which received a standing ovation ÷ was also far from stellar. It was essentially identical to that of last year's State of the Union, save his newfound crusade against the true demons of the health care system: patients who file malpractice claims against their health care providers. Are we to have pity on the poor, defenseless HMOs?
Finally, the president once again demonstrated his proclivity to stubbornly maintaining his decisions, no matter how irrational, by hearkening back ÷ thematically, if not nominally ÷ to his "Axis of Evil" scheme of yesteryear. He introduced the irrelevant topic of Iran merely as a way of pointing out his astonishing prescience with regard to the other two members of the infamous trio ÷ nevermind that the crises in North Korea and Iraq were manufactured by U.S. policy, and not the other way around.
So was Bush's address the sign of a new, more financially responsible, globally aware administration? A way to reclaim moderate Democrats in response to rapidly falling approval ratings? Or was it a ruse to lure liberals into complacency as he drives ultra-conservative legislation through a newly Republican congress? For all its highlights and lowlights, the one thing we can all take from Bush's address is questions.
