The right speech at the wrong time

On Tuesday night President George W. Bush went through the ceremony of his sixth State of the Union address. This year's speech had a noticeably calmer tone, being more idealistic and less polarizing. It is the speech he should have given last year.

Much of the address was obligatory summary of Bush's political positions interspersed with the extended applause that characterizes this yearly ritual. However, there was the recurring theme in the speech of isolationism versus activism, both diplomatically and economically.

The first half of the speech was devoted to terrorism and the Middle East. Bush began by reinforcing the severity of the threat posed by al Qaeda and he vowed that the United States would not succumb to fear at home or to the temptation to retreat abroad. He went on to discuss the importance of transformational diplomacy and spreading democracy to the region, saying that the goal should be "the advance of freedom." About Iraq, he said that America cannot "[leave] an assaulted world to fend for itself," and said that he had a "clear plan for victory."

Bush's economic message was that the United States should "compete with confidence." He denounced protectionism, using it as an opportunity to lobby for his proposed guest worker program. One of his most noteworthy plans was to invest in alternative energy sources, technology and high-school math and science education.

Overall, the speech was an excellent display of politics. It was relatively non-partisan and decidedly optimistic. However, it is the kind of speech for a White House in a comfortable political position. With Bush's job approval rating in the low forties, this speech is unlikely to sway the American people because it failed to address their concerns.

Some of the reasons why many voters have lost confidence in their president are frustration over the new Medicare reform, his justification for war in Iraq, hurricane Katrina relief mismanagement, the lack of a Social Security fix and the growing sense of cronyism and corruption in Washington. Most of these issues Bush barely paid lip service to, speaking only on issues on which he traditionally performs well. With a trustworthiness rating of less than 50 percent, the president needs to address the public's concerns, not reinforce his own ideals.

One of the weakest points of the speech was Bush's call to create a bipartisan commission to study the effect of retiring baby boomers on social security. While it is a good idea, Bush had gone from having a plan to planning for a plan, a move that smacks of defeat and uncertainty. His language on Iran was also relatively weak, due to its vagueness, and he completely avoided the issues of political ethics.

Overall Bush's speech seemed great, until Tim Kaine brought the discussion from abstractions to reality in his Democratic response. It's not that Kaine's speech was particularly powerful — it wasn't — but it brought the discussion back to the concerns of the American people. Bush criticized his opponents by saying, "Hindsight alone is not wisdom and second-guessing is not a strategy." However, the whole speech was a straw man argument. Bush's problem isn't protectionist sentiment at all, but the sense that he has not effectively executed his presidential mandate. This speech would have helped unite the polarized politics of last year, but it won't convince a skeptical audience. Isolationism versus activism was the wrong paradigm for this address.