George Bush has what might be called a two-toned image of the world: everything that’s not white is black, anything that’s not good is bad, and anyone not with him is against him.
One has a vision of Bush standing at the ark as Noah counts off the animals going inside in pairs, making sure – as he said in his speech – that in a “system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches…even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone.”
Civility was evident throughout the speech and in its reception. But ever-present just below the rhetoric of presidential optimism was the suggestion of limits, both in the choices that the world is offering the U.S. and Washington is offering the public. Thus, do we pursue freedom’s enemies or retreat from our duties, lead the world economy or shut ourselves off from trade? No third (or more), dishwater gray, nuanced alternative is even considered. And only one solution is possible for the people, for peace, and for the future: U.S. leadership.
Democracy and freedom are juxtaposed by dictatorship and radicalism, with the latter morphing into Islamic radicalism. But Bush’s emphasis is oriented more on the electoral process – which requires involvement of government structures – than on whether the public is given a real opportunity to choose, which is the essence of freedom. The Bush speech thus gives only half of the tale; yes there are 122 electoral democracies in today’s world, but only 89 countries are rated “free” (Freedom House’s 2005 annual survey).
Another interesting morph occurs when Bush focuses on terror organizations. Whereas dictators seek “weapons of mass destruction,” “terrorists” such as Osama bin Laden “arm themselves with weapons of mass murder.” The phrase, which is repeated, occurs as Bush refers to the “terrorists” efforts to seize control of Iraq, almost as if he is trying to “air brush” Saddam Hussein (who is never mentioned) and pre-war claims of weapons of mass destruction out of the picture. It is also here – and only here in speaking of “evil” – that a listener detects the cadence of biblical phraseology: “allowing the violent to inherit the earth”; “raised up democracies”; “deliver the oppressed.”
Bush then shifts to his first mantra: “We remain on the offensive…” Terror networks, Afghanistan, and Iraq are the locales. Bush’s “clear plan for victory” is Iraqi-ization, which is also the key to troop reductions. At this point, Bush stumbles twice. First, he says that field commanders, not Washington politicians, will decide when U.S. troop levels can be decreased. But as war, and what passes today for war, is politics by other means, decisions about what is victory and the appropriate troop levels are in fact political matters. Second, while claiming to be reaching out to all in Congress for advice, Bush asserts only one option in Iraq: “stand behind the American military in this vital mission.” The speech at this point attempts to conjoin “stay the course policy” with “support the troops” and thereby co-opt opponents of continued fighting by U.S. forces.
Bush returns to the old theme of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Without being specific, he lauds “electoral reforms” in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Forced to acknowledge Hamas’ victory in Palestinian elections, Bush demands Hamas “recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace” – with the implied threat of cutting off not only aid but all contact because Hamas is considered a terrorist organization and Washington does not deal with terrorists.
But, as Bush immediately says, Washington is more than willing to “listen in” on citizens. Calling for passage of legislation re-authorizing expiring portions of the Patriot Act, Bush also defends the use of warrantless wire taps by the National Security Agency in the “long war” against terror.
And here the real message of the night begins to emerge. Bush asserts flatly that he can by-pass Congress and the courts and authorize a “terrorist surveillance program” because he has “authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute.” There is no qualifier such as “I believe that.”
Republicans long have called for limited government. George Bush would limit government by limiting the actions of the Congress – passing cuts to 140 non-security sector programs, ending all earmarks on funding bills, and passing the line item veto. As for the courts, “activists” need not apply; judges would be “servants of the law.”
The main theme in the second part of the speech was “keeping America competitive.” Education, especially math and science, health care reform, and enacting permanent tax cuts are top priorities. But these, together with a proposal for a new study on entitlement reform, are dwarfed by an Advanced Energy Initiative whose goal is to cut oil imports from the Middle East by 75 percent by 2025.
In the end, Bush again poses a false dichotomy by asserting that either America leads or the world “is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious” place. Yet simply looking around the globe reveals a third reality: the world today is more dangerous and anxious precisely because of the policies pursued by this administration.
Somebody needs to warn Noah.
