|  |  |
 |  | |
| ||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
 Recent commentary from National Journal: Media: Enron's Gift? (February 5, 2002) What if the Enron quake doesn't pan out as many journalists suspect—and the Bushies are squeaky-clean? By William Powers. Legal Affairs: We Don't Need to Be Scofflaws to Attack Terror (February 5, 2002) Disregarding the Geneva Conventions will undermine the ability of the United States to wage war. By Stuart Taylor Jr. On Books: An Exposé, Starring the Author (February 5, 2002) dot.bomb: My Days and Nights at an Internet Goliath proves that even those who fail at business, or who work for failures, can find a gullible publisher. By K. Daniel Glover. Media: Sentimental Journey (January 29, 2002) As the Enron story emerges, journalists are transported back to glorious White House scandals past. By William Powers. Legal Affairs: Beware of Cures That Are Worse Than the Disease (January 29, 2002) What Enron did stinks to high heaven. But that doesn't justify passing the badly flawed Shays-Meehan bill. By Stuart Taylor Jr. Political Pulse: 'Daddy Issues' Grab Center Stage (January 29, 2002) Even among women voters, 'mommy issues' are viewed as less important than they were before September 11. By William Schneider. Social Studies: Don't Fear Bin Ladenism's Strength. Fear Its Weakness (January 29, 2002) The West faces not the clash of two cultures but—what may be trickier—the catastrophic collapse of one. By Jonathan Rauch. More from National Journal. |
Political Pulse 
Long on Character, Short on DetailsBush's speech was aimed at supporters who are not yet partisans of the GOP by William Schneider .... President Bush delivered two State of the Union addresses on Tuesday night—one about the war on terrorism, the other about the economy. The war speech was an unqualified triumph—the economy speech, a qualified success. Polling speech-watchers immediately after the President's address, the Gallup Organization found that a resounding 64 percent thought that Bush's proposals to deal with terrorism would be "very effective." Just 41 percent had the same enthusiasm for Bush's proposals to deal with the economy. There was a noticeable difference in tone between the two speeches. The President's comments on terrorism seemed driven by a deep sense of personal resolve: "I will not wait on events while dangers gather," Bush declared. "I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." His comments on the economy displayed less personal commitment and more political calculation. "When America works, America prospers," Bush told the nation. "So my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: 'jobs.' " It was the President's way of avoiding his father's fatal mistake, which was failing to connect with ordinary Americans' needs and concerns. The domestic portion of the President's speech was the part that most engaged his congressional audience. Bush's call for "economic security" brought cheers from the room. But it was not the domestic portion of the speech that captivated viewers at home. Asked "Which was more important to you in tonight's speech?" 52 percent of viewers replied it was the remarks about terrorism. Only 29 percent cited Bush's statements about the economy. How does that jibe with the fact that the economy is now the public's No. 1 concern? Viewers were responding to the President's priorities: For him, the war on terrorism was a more deeply felt priority. "We have been called to a unique role in human events," Bush said near the end of his address. His meaning was unmistakable: "I have been called to a unique role in human events." This President's evocations of character were strong and effective because he is widely acclaimed, not for his intellect or ideology, but for his character and values. Calling for "a new culture of responsibility,"' the President observed that "for too long, our culture has said, 'If it feels good, do it.' Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: 'Let's roll.' " His forthright advocacy of civilized values was especially compelling. "America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity," Bush said, "the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance." A nice touch, that reference to "non-negotiable demands." It comes from the language of 1960s radicals. Bush's speech was aimed at supporters who are not yet partisans. According to a pre-speech Gallup Poll, 84 percent of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as President, but only 44 percent say they intend to vote for a Republican for Congress this year. That huge 40-percentage-point gap is Bush's target audience. When it comes to handling the terrorist threat, that same 40 percent of voters favors Republicans over Democrats by nearly 2-to-1. But on the economy, they favor Democrats by an even bigger proportion. They're Democrats on the economy, Republicans on the war. To win them over, Bush has to turn the economy into a war issue—which is what he's been trying to do for weeks. He has argued that the best thing he can do for the economy is protect the nation's security. Then, the argument goes, Americans will regain confidence about traveling, spending, and investing. Democrats are trying to pry the two issues apart. They say, as Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., did last month, "We support the President on the war but oppose him on the economy." The President's message in his State of the Union address was: You can't separate the economy from the war. "We must act at home with the same purpose and resolve we have shown overseas," Bush declared. "We will prevail in the war, and we will defeat this recession." Linking the two policies seems to have worked. Nearly three-quarters of speech-watchers (73 percent) endorsed the view that the President's economic program is likely to get the country out of the recession. When his father delivered his 1992 State of the Union address, only 47 percent of viewers felt that the President had a workable economic program. President George W. Bush gave a speech that was vague in its policy prescriptions. Even his threat to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea—the rogue states he branded "an axis of evil"—was unspecified. ("We will work closely with our coalition" to deny them "the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.") The President's domestic agenda was also notably short on detail ("a patients' bill of rights," "a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs"). There's one thing that definitely can be said about a speech that evokes a powerful sense of personal character but is weak on details. It could never have been given by Bill Clinton.
What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. Copyright © 2001 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved. |
| ||
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Back Issues |
Forum |
Site Guide |
Feedback |
Subscribe |
Search
| ||||
