State of the Union

Comments on State of the Union address

There is no shortage of commentary on President Bush's State of the Union speech to Congress on Tuesday evening, January 29. We'll make no pretense of duplicating all the wisdom that is being offered, but we would like to share a few "faith-based" comments (to coin a phrase) about the speech and what it implies for our future.

Have you seen helpful comments -- or can you offer some of your own. Please send us a note, and we'll post things here!

Studying today's issues through eyes of faith [2-6-02]

The Confession 1967 calls us to "study ... both the Bible and the contemporary world." This call leads the Rev. Bruce Gillette to suggest readings from leading newspapers on "the imaginary axis threat," and on the President's proposed increase in military spending - in contrast to more constructive ways of responding to threats of terrorism.

More on the State of the Union:
One progressive observer liked much of what he heard from Bush [2-1-02]

Richard Just, writing in The American Prospect, found much to like in the President's State of the Union address - above all his call for universal voluntary service. He noted, though, that what the President did not say - about Enron and campaign finance reform, and about controversial issues such as embryonic stem cell research and military courts - showed him building support where post-9/11 unity still seems strong, and avoiding the more difficult domestic issues that must somehow be confronted.

H e a r t s & M i n d s

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The State of Our Union
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1-30-02]

by Jim Wallis

With the highest approval rating of any president in modern history (85%+), George W. Bush presented his State of the Union speech amidst an atmosphere of high drama here in the nation's capital. I had a team from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) with me in my living room, interviewing me while we watched the address together. They were seeking many "different American voices" for a three- hour program that airs Sunday in Canada.

My three-year-old son, Luke, was fascinated by their equipment and microphones, and the Canadian media crew was quite struck by the frequent sounds of sirens coming in through the open window on an unusually warm January night in Washington D.C. I was reminded again of how stunned foreign visitors are by the violence and poverty of American inner cities, especially blocks from the White House and the House chamber where Mr. Bush was speaking.

They asked how I deal with relating to the "two Washingtons," and what people in a neighborhood like this might think of the president's speech or American politics in general. I explained that my poorest neighbors have never seen their lives change with the succession of Republican or Democratic presidents or Congresses and, consequently, don't get much caught up in a speech like last night's.

Like most people around the world, these Canadians are very concerned about terrorism and consider the battle against it a "just cause." But like many people internationally, they also aren't as sure that America's military campaign is a "just war." When Bush announced the largest increase in military spending in two decades ($50 billion), my interviewer remarked, "That sure is a lot of money." Indeed.

Canadians will also wonder why everything in Bush's speech was about America's leadership, America's role, and America's responsibilities in defeating terrorism. On Sept. 11, America might have joined the world in some new sense, but Bush's speech clearly proclaims an American agenda demanding international support, much more than a truly international strategy where the United States plays a central role.

After recounting U.S. successes in Afghanistan - destroying terrorist camps and ending repressive Taliban rule - Bush admitted that "tens of thousands of trained terrorists" are still alive and active in networks like al Qaeda. The fact that such a danger requires a massive international intelligence and policing effort, more than wider wars in several more countries, was forgotten in a very bellicose war speech. Naming Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as constituting an "axis of evil," is a clear effort to lay the foundation for U.S. military strikes that will likely take the lives of fewer terrorists than innocent civilians.

The rest of the president's speech tried to turn war-time popularity into success for his domestic agenda. Many commendable goals were named - jobs, a clean environment, home ownership, teacher training, a patient bill of rights, prescription drug coverage, early childhood development, encouraging charities and faith-based groups etc. - but with no real specifics for implementation. With such high levels of military spending and last night's commitment to make Bush's tax cuts "permanent," it's not at all clear where the resources for domestic needs will come. And Bush's general references to safeguarding pensions funds and making American corporations more "accountable" are hardly an adequate response to the deep challenges that the Enron scandal poses to the now standard practices of American business and politics.

One hopes the president doesn't think those needs will easily be met by his call for two years or 4,000 hours of volunteer service from every American. Having called for such commitment all my life, I don't believe the problems in neighborhoods like mine will ever be solved without a massive political and societal commitment to match citizen action. As I told my Canadian visitors, when it comes to terrorism, America pledges its full commitment to whatever resources it takes, but when it comes to poverty, America calls for volunteerism. The president says we will "act at home with the same purpose and resolve we have shown overseas." That promise remains unfulfilled. I was especially disappointed that President Bush called for welfare reform that replaces "dependency on government" with the "dignity of a job" without an expressed commitment to make work really work for the millions of people who are now off the welfare roles and working, but remain in poverty.

I really like presidential talk about values, and we saw some fine language last night about turning away from the ethic of "if it feels good, do it," and moving from "the goods we can accumulate" to "the good we can do." I particularly liked the call for a "culture of responsibility" that "serves goals larger than self." We indeed must "change our culture." But values have to be implemented to have any value. And a country dominated by a commitment to endless war abroad and volunteerism at home will fall far short of the best values expressed last night.

Source: SojoNet 2002 (c) http://www.sojo.net