The State of the Union is Strong

The first president to issue a State of the Union address was George Washington. Thomas Jefferson did not give any sort of speech, but instead delivered copies of his Sate of the Union to the House and the Senate in 1801. The next State of the Union address didn't come for another 112 years, when it was delivered by Woodrow Wilson.

It has now become a common annual occurrence for the president to present the State of the Union to both houses of government and, thanks to broadcasting media, to the citizens as well. There have been few such addresses that contained any substance, either forceful in legislative scope or inspirational in stylistic oratory.

I don't know whether a president has ever provided a State of the Union in which the message was dire, or that the "state of the union" was weak or tenuous. It would seem like a bad move to do so. Obviously a positive tone is more appealing, even when the current political or economic situation seems otherwise.

President Bush delivered his State of the Union last night, and his assessment is that the state of our union is strong. Not only that, it will become stronger! Perhaps the next president will tell us that the state of our union is "really, really super-strong."

I'm neither a policy wonk nor a Beltway insider, but from where I sit I question the status of our union. Gulf coast states ravaged by Katrina are still struggling to regain basic services. The current trade deficit and national debt are staggering, and projections suggest they will worsen. Prolonged occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq have taken a grim toll on American lives, and funding these ongoing operations further strains an already lean economy. The Hamas party taking the victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections and developments in Iran's nuclear program have raised additional questions as to our role in the Middle East, while North Korea's nuclear program seems to be moving along without much diplomatic intercession. Investigations into alleged torture programs on the part of the CIA and US military are ongoing. Estimates of a military force stretched too thin, coupled with a dropoff in enlistment rates, have some officials concerned about the ability of our armed forces to adequately provide security for our nation. The passage of a budget-cutting bill that would trim some $40 billion from areas like Medicaid and student loans begs the question of where American funding priorities lie.

My dissatisfaction with the entire notion of the State of the Union address rests, I think, in the gulf between what the president says should happen and what legislative measures actually achieve. It is important to set goals, but goals are really only valuable if they are met, or at least attempted. Bush's proposal to wean America's reliance on Middle Eastern oil imports by 75%--a figure to supposedly be realized in 2025--seems pointless. A better goal would be to cut our reliance on all petroleum fuels by 75%, though that too seems highly unlikely. Noting that only a fifth of our oil imports come from the Middle East, Bush's "oil intervention" seems that much more a piece for popular consumption than a measure that will markedly affect our environment or economy.

We face a growing crisis in terms of our groaning national debt, deplorable education and health care systems and a constantly eroding environment. Serious, concerted steps must be taken now to deal with all of these problems which will each take more than one or two presidential terms to correct. Worse, American policy only seems to move swiftly if quick money is to be made in pursuing any particular agenda, and none of these challenges suggest a fat pot of gold or a menu of no-bid contracts.

The time and energy that speechwriters, political strategists and polling bodies invest in these Sate of the Union addresses (and the various "analyses" provided afterward by the media) would be much better served by building a house in which we all can live rather than drawing a picture of a house in which it would be nice to live.