State of the Union
by Robert Russo
Although it has not yet been determined if last night’s presidential address was the least-watched in modern times, analysts seem to agree it had the least room for accomplishment available and the least relevance as a speech than any S.O.U. our president has made (except perhaps the relevance of bipartisanship, new gestures of humility and homage to the democratic majority and its first female speaker), there being a previous presidential address deemed necessary earlier this month, and Bush’s approval rating being the lowest of any president since Nixon.* A good place to find his critics during an address is in chat (or at the movies, grocery store etc.) exchanging statements like "they let the chimp out of the cage again", although the more serious ones do still have their eyes glued to the screen. His words are practically released in advance anyway, but this raises an interesting question. Let’s say the country is divided into two political classes, only one of which has access to television for financial or religious/cultural reasons. Would the result be the most pleasant, agreeable, efficient presentations the Capital building has ever seen, directed not toward the country but the select audience?
Perhaps more Virginians tuned in for Sen. Webb’s response, a tradition started by Bob Dole to serve his own presidential bid (a move which ended the unity of viewers toward the State of the Union and respect for the presidency itself in my opinion), and nearly died out with barely an eye batted last year when jokes were made about democrats rubber-stamping republican statements the party was so weak. It may have new significance however because of the issues, the president’s low ratings and the excellent choice of speaker this time around. Webb, whose manner was more subdued on election night, released his known "fiery" side on the subject of Iraq saying "the president took us into this war recklessly".** Ironically the most significant members of his party were all applauding in front of Bush at the time, but these two starkly different speeches focus a very familiar and difficult political situation, a nation divided between those who want to hear of unity and steadfastness to keep our way of life alive, and those who have "patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years"** and cannot be represented unless this core issue is faced. I will argue both sides, since many of us have personally stood at such a crossroads before.
I agree with sensible criticism of our president but it greatly disturbs me to see unintelligible flaming. Anyone who wants a better president must respect the presidency itself, not in blind faith toward that institution (which is certainly undeserved) but because there are merits, one of them being he is our source for information on decisions. On several occasions I have listened to those refusing to watch presidential addresses calling him a liar. The problem with this is if Bush says "dealing with Iraq will require great resolve", just calling him a liar implies it won’t take great resolve and that begins a cycle of wordplay, and the speaker is left uninformed. If necessary credit his speechwriters and not himself for telling the truth (and I do believe his address calling for more troops was entirely factual and relevant, if anything because it came from the advice of others, and that his dishonesties lie in omission). Our responsibility is to look at the words, not the man, because if we are not informed then we may as well not vote.
When I speak well of Bush or Webb it is not out of any political affiliation, much as a friend asks if you still like him or not when it is what they do that is liked or disliked. When someone says the war was begun recklessly I think of how the president waited for months out of respect for the UN while the enemy fortified themselves, and how we hated Saddam and felt a long-standing need to remove him as we did Hitler. If Bush wanted to be reckless, he would have used more militarily tactful speed and the UN might be politically obsolete today (though we have entered the Imperial age under this same man’s watch). On the other hand Webb has a son fighting in Iraq and every right to be the fierce voice of opposition. And the president’s choice may indeed be the best military option, but doing the right thing doesn’t always win wars. A huge range of politics and intent are assigned to unpredictable circumstance.
Now that I’ve said some rather un-libertarian things, there is the side of discontent. When people are meddling with our lives, there are no excuses. When the need for unity, bipartisanship, military force and respect for our leadership is maintained at too high a price, that house must be taken down. When someone has swindled you too many times there is nothing more they can say, and there are situations in which I would refuse to listen from the start if faced with people from certain professions or stakes that are inarguable. We live in times in which Filmmaker George Lucas was asked if the evil emperor from Star Wars was intentionally modeled after our current president.*** More Americans have now died in a war of his design than those killed in the attacks on our country. The evil empire of fiction has become a reality and one man has been at the helm throughout this evolution. This alone makes him the worst leader this nation has ever had, not because of intentions or integrity, but attribution and accountability. Cause and effect, beyond the small price of one man’s job. The man does not understand the scope of what he has done.
Unfortunately such grudges go too far all over the world. Factions go without speaking for decades, Iraq is divided between people starving for peace and those who will not even suffer their neighbors to live, and in the Balkan states such feuds have been maintained for centuries. It is a difficult equation guided only as our God and his values speak to us, telling us to stand or compromise. Many posts following the General Assembly have been made this month, and it occurred to me while trying to find a parking space near Capitol Square there is no way to improve the conditions of downtown Richmond, none, without making space and that means asking someone or something to pack up and leave (a firm taboo). Any impediment, be an institution, legislation or the president, that has become so solid it is unworkable, must be cracked.
I was pleased however by much of the speech, especially the long-overdue words "climate change".**** Although I did not vote either way this time around, I can see how many Libertarians would view Webb as a harbinger of change or at least prefer a democrat as our next president if we can’t put our own man there. If the division continues this country will have an unspoken civil war of its own. For a full transcript of the State of the Union go to www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/sotu.bush.transcript/index.html. For Sen. Webb’s response, www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/sotu.webb.transcript/index.html.
*http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=2811599&page=1&CMP=google_breakingnews_&partner=google&gclid=CLubo6-Z-YkCFRevgAod_yPTOg
**http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/sotu.webb.transcript/index.html
***http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/05/16/BL2005051600615.html
****http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581789,00.html
Richmond Liberty Poll: Did you watch the State of the Union and the democrats’ response? Which did you prefer? Send your opinions to lenrely1@aol.com.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!