Eyes on the Prize
by James Di Liberto, Jr.

While Bush's operatives swear the speech is about policy, scheduling it between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary undercuts such assertions. And Bush's address, from its outset, was a vigorous defense of his record tailored to arguments already heard on the Democratic campaign trail. It was less the state of the union than the opening salvo of Bush-Cheney '04. But if that's the case, Bush has a lot of work to do.

As expected, the president defended the war in Iraq and his unilateral foreign policy — Howard Dean has pilloried Bush on the subject (though Bush's efforts seem out of place following the Vermont rebel's underwhelming performance in the caucuses). Questions still abound over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the president's rationale for invading, as well as his decision to buck much of the Western world, and Bush needed to address the issue. But he offered virtually nothing we haven't heard out of his camp before.

But despite Bush's vigorous defense of his Iraq policy, he refused to offer a vision for a new world. He lauded the newly written Afghan constitution, but he has yet to offer a prescription for how Iraqi and Afghan democracy will take hold beyond such preliminary steps. Meanwhile, given that the Pentagon has sorely underestimated the manpower needed in Iraq, Bush needed to do more than simply reiterate his support for the troops. And yet in a speech historically framed by dramatic pronouncements (think of last year's citation of new evidence of Iraqi WMDs), Bush offered nothing — neither exit strategy (if he plans on pulling out of Iraq in time for the election) nor discussion of a long-term occupation (if the transition to democracy is rockier than the Pentagon anticipates) made the speech.

Such open-endedness (and the resulting stop orders on troop rotations) poses a looming morale disaster for American servicemen; perhaps Bush should have spent more time telling us how he would support the troops rather than paying lip service through purple prose. In fact, the only policy-specific argument Bush made during his segment on security was urging the renewal of the Patriot Act when its powers expire next year. So unpopular is the act that many Democrats unleashed unscripted claps when the president said the provisions were due to expire.

Bush's transition into the domestic and humanitarian-policy portion of the speech was rocky, and his message here was certainly more circumspect than last year's. While in 2003 he surprised many by offering funding for AIDS relief in Africa, this year he tipped his hand before the speech with his Mars initiative — an ambitious idea but rather far removed from the political pulse of a nation more concerned with terrorism, deficits and jobs (which may explain why it didn't make it into the speech). As a result, the president's bid for a Kennedy-esque moment was nowhere to be found, and instead he fell back on a wandering review of already announced policies.

Bush became most animated when defending his tax-cut agenda; though not officially proposing a new round of cuts, he advocated that the cuts he already pushed through Congress be made permanent. It often seems Bush does not advocate tax cuts as stimulus but simply for their own sake — especially if they benefit the higher end of the income scale. Indeed, the contrast between Bush's high-budget items — the war, Medicare drug coverage, the unmentioned space plan — highlight the faux conservatism into which he has wandered. Reagan Republicans and free-market ideologues want to keep both taxes and government spending low; but Bush lowers taxes, especially for the wealthy, without large reductions in spending. The result is an administration that cuts income, increases spending and takes on debts that future generations of Americans will have to pay for.

And this, as in so many State of the Union speeches, is the problem: Bush offers no way to pay for his new ideas, but he refuses to address the funding issues plaguing his favorite initiatives. Take the No Child Left Behind Act: It is an admirable attempt to improve the state of American education, but it is largely a set of rules to be followed, without the funding to support them. And, though his new job training and education package is laudable, he proposes it without any indication of who is footing the bill.

Beyond education, Bush renewed his support for a series of industry-friendly domestic policies, such as the recently passed Medicare drug legislation. Though it arranges for many seniors to get discounted drugs, it also bars Medicare from negotiating better prices for medication. Such a move essentially lets the pharmaceutical industry set the prices on drugs for millions — a nice handout to GOP donors at tremendous cost to taxpayers. Talk about government waste. And yet, framed as a boon to seniors, it will be a major plank in his reelection bid.

Meanwhile, Bush's proposal in the speech for expanding insurance coverage largely amounted to tort reform, a clear shot at trial lawyer and potential campaign opponent John Edwards. Bush also pitched tax-free health savings accounts, which make for great campaign rhetoric but in reality would only be useful to the people who have the spare cash to tuck away — hardly the same demographic that makes up the bulk of the nation's uninsured.

A similar problem confronts his plan to craft personal retirement accounts out of Social Security by allowing workers to put some of their Social Security earnings in the market. Social Security is one of the most hallowed of New Deal programs, a guarantee of funds for seniors not tied to the depressed economy, but Bush's proposal would do exactly what social security intended to avoid — tie people's futures to potentially volatile markets. Such a system may aid more financially savvy Americans (who are likely to have other sources of retirement income), but it would prove dangerously unstable for many.

All of these planks will likely play a big part on the campaign trail, but they were hardly crafted solely to take on the Democrats. It was in the third part of Bush's speech, however, where he delved deep into the political waters to truly set the stage for his reelection campaign. Going beyond mere foreign and domestic policy, he outlined his social vision for America. Knowing that gay rights is increasingly a wedge issue between Democrats and Republicans, he reiterated his strong support for the Defense of Marriage Act — even hinting that he would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. The polls show that gay marriage is a hot-button issue in the red states, and Bush obviously knows it.

The president also vowed to double funding for abstinence education, prompting one to wonder how much money it takes to tell kids that the only safe sex is no sex (it's not as if he wants to send millions of condoms and bananas to sex-ed teachers across America). While treating teens like children in regards to how much they are exposed to the realities of sex in modern American culture, he also plans on increasing the funding available to give many of these same schoolchildren drug tests in order to take the war on drugs to the next level. Kids can't vote, but their parents can, went Bush's logic last night.

Ultimately, Bush pandered to the groups he needed. His big-business backers surely liked what they heard about tax cuts, while millions of Americans were told that these were actually intended to help them. He stoked the patriotic embers that drive Republican support, and his social stances on abstinence and marriage will play well for both his conservative base and among many suburban swing families.

This was not a speech geared toward building a consensus and passing legislation. Unconvincing as it was, his was a declaration of political war, an opening salvo against the Democrats that will lay down the core of Bush's campaign. Don't expect to hear much of Bush's speech discussed in the halls of Congress — expect to hear it on the campaign trail.