Atlantic Unbound | January 23, 2004
The State of the Union Address

Annotated by James Fallows, an Atlantic national correspondent and a former presidential speechwriter


Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

America this evening is a nation called to great responsibilities. And we are rising to meet them. [The speech gets off to a mildly unusual start. Last year, the president opened with the one-two introductory combo that is standard for SOTU addresses. First, he reminded the audience of the historic importance of a president's annual report to Congress; then, he revealed his judgment about how the "state of the union" stands. Last year, as a reminder, he said in the second paragraph of his speech that "our union is strong." This year, the verdict doesn't come until the sixth paragraph, below, where the union is now "confident and strong."]

As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure. [Here is a bit of continuity with President Bush's two previous SOTU addresses. In all of them he has stressed early in the speech that the nation's leaders gather at a moment of stormy world events. His first, and best, SOTU address, complete with its trademark "axis of evil" line, led with a litany of all the dangers besetting America four months after the September 11 attacks—followed by the brave declaration that nonetheless "The state of our union has never been stronger." His second, last year, came as war with Iraq was all but inevitable. In this latest speech, the two sentences in this paragraph qualify as political haiku. That is, they do a lot of work in a relatively small number of syllables. The first sentence positions the President as a wartime commander, by implication on duty along with his troops—and also classifies the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as fronts in the war on terror. The second sentence touches on what are now the Administration's best arguments for invading Iraq—freeing its people, removing its tyrant, in a general way making America safer—while avoiding all mention of the main theme of last year's speech, the imminent danger of Iraq's WMD.]

Each day, law enforcement personnel and intelligence officers are tracking terrorist threats; analysts are examining airline passenger lists; the men and women of our new Homeland Security Department are patrolling our coasts and borders. And their vigilance is protecting America. [The introduction of a leitmotif: America is safer because of the war in Iraq, contrary to what the Democratic candidates have been saying.

This is the time to mention the unusual timing of this year's address. January 20—the date of this year's SOTU address—is a portentous date in Washington, because it is of course presidential inauguration day. SOTUs have no fixed date but usually occur in the last few days of January or even the beginning of February. Last year, the President spoke on January 28. By pushing up the date of this year's speech, the Administration was in position to counter the barrage of Democratic argument that had been televised during the Iowa campaign. Related point: much more than the President's typical speeches, parts of this one are structured as actual arguments, or responses to criticisms of his policy. That is one of two positive aspects of this speech: the President has steadily improved in the simple platform skills of delivering a set speech, and especially in the Iraq sections he attempted to deal with some widely held criticisms.

Americans are proving once again to be the hardest working people in the world. [There is no such thing as over-pandering to the American public.] The American economy is growing stronger. The tax relief you passed is working. [The first big with-us or agin'-us line in the speech. In contrast to some of the arguments concerning Iraq, this is a simple "our side is right" assertion. Republicans rose to cheer; Democrats sat stony-faced.]

Tonight, Members of Congress can take pride in the great works of compassion and reform that skeptics had thought impossible. You're raising the standards of our public schools; and you're giving our senior citizens prescription drug coverage under Medicare. [A nice touch of jujitsu. Yes, mentioning the Medicare bill causes slight awkwardness for the Republicans in the crowd, since a number of small-government conservatives objected to this expansion of public benefits. But it's even more awkward for the Democrats, since a number of them supported Bush's plan, thereby diminishing the solidarity the opposition likes to display during the domestic-policy parts of a speech.

We have faced serious challenges together—and now we face a choice. We can go forward with confidence and resolve—or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us. We can press on with economic growth, and reforms in education and Medicare—or we can turn back to old policies and old divisions. [A surprisingly clumsy version of the standard "summary and transition" paragraph in any policy speech. It's clumsy because there's no real logic to the first, transitional sentence. (We faced these issues, like tax cuts and Medicare, "together"? In fact, they were tremendously divisive. And why do we "now" face a choice that's different from before? Etc.) Speeches—in fact, anything designed to be heard rather than read—can get away with much sketchier transitions than material in print can. Often just a pause of a few seconds can signify, "Okay, we're going to talk about something new." But this is not much better than a mere pause. Worse, the "choice" the public allegedly faces—whether to "go forward" or "turn back"—is like a passage from a high school speech. All of this is surprising because Bush's major speeches are usually well crafted at this detailed-workmanship level.]

We have not come all this way—through tragedy, and trial and war—only to falter and leave our work unfinished. [Nice try. The idea here is: we suffered and pulled together after September 11. Therefore everything I'm about to recommend is part of that same patriotic effort.] Americans are rising to the tasks of history, and they expect the same from us. In their efforts, their enterprise, and their character, the American people are showing that the state of our union is confident and strong. [It's about time! Again as a matter of craft, it's surprising to wait this long to get to the requisite "State of the Union is..." line, when the material that's delayed it is generally so undistinguished.]

Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. [A more successful illustration of the transition-sentence. The end of the previous paragraph guarantees sustained applause. That builds in a pause that adds to the point of this paragraph's first sentence, which means: Now, we're going to talk about defense and international affairs.] Twenty-eight months have passed since September the 11th, 2001—over two years without an attack on American soil [Walking a tightrope here. Now and through the campaign, the Administration needs to argue that its anti-terror campaign has been so effective that it has kept al Qaeda at bay—but that the threat is still so great that the legal, financial, and military components of the "war on terror" can't be relaxed. Human nature makes this argument tricky—if Code Orange alerts come and go with no attacks, people naturally begin making fun of them. The saving grace for the Administration is that the Democrats have an even trickier argument to make. They can't really complain about an absence of attacks, and it's also tough to say, "Our policies would have been better."]—and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting—and false. The killing has continued in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombassa, Jerusalem, Istanbul and Baghdad. The terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world. And by our will and courage, this danger will be defeated. [This paragraph amounts to an actual "argument," complete with acknowledgement of opposing view and use of evidence. This may be a sign of the Administration's concern that it can't just assert the case any longer. Whatever the motive, it's nice to see a more-or-less reasoned point—in contrast to some of the domestic policy assertions later on.]

Inside the United States, where the war began, [Deceptively important passage. These eight words reassert two premises on which the Administration's policies rest: that what is going on is a war, which implies non-stop effort until (somehow) it is won; and that the September 11 attacks were indeed the hinge of history, or at least comparable to Pearl Harbor. A few paragraphs later, the President actually addresses the opposing view: that the terrorist danger is instead analogous to crime, which can't ever be eliminated, as Hitler's regime was, but can only be controlled. Again, the best part of the speech is his actually arguing his foreign policy.] we must continue to give homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows Federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. [First real, "Hey, wait a minute!" moment. No one is being held indefinitely without trial on embezzlement or drug charges. If the Patriot Act merely applies existing techniques, why was it needed?] If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens—you need to renew the Patriot Act. [Absolutely stark division within the Chamber on this line. Again, to his credit, the President offered a rationale: the threat persists, so this Act must as well.]

America is on the offensive against the terrorists who started this war. Last March, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a mastermind of September the 11th, awoke to find himself in the custody of U.S. and Pakistani authorities. Last August the 11th brought the capture of the terrorist Hambali, who was a key player in the attack in Indonesia that killed over 200 people. We're tracking Al Qaeda around the world—and nearly two-thirds of their known leaders have now been captured or killed. Thousands of very skilled and determined military personnel are on the manhunt, going after the remaining killers who hide in cities and caves—and, one by one, we will bring the terrorists to justice. [Important subliminal message: what our soldiers have been doing is finding terrorists. So when we talk about our largest deployment of soldiers, a few paragraphs from now....]

As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The United States and our allies are determined: [The part of the speech that must have been most unpleasant to write, for obvious reasons. My bet: this paragraph, and the one lower down also dealing with the potential threat of terrorists with weapons, went through more re-writing and green-eyeshade inspection than any other part of the speech.]

We refuse to live in the shadow of this ultimate danger.

The first to see our determination were the Taliban, who made Afghanistan the primary training base of Al Qaeda killers. As of this month, that country has a new constitution, guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With the help from the new Afghan army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The men and women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free, and proud and fighting terror—and America is honored to be their friend.

Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein [Now: we'll talk about Iraq....]—and the people of Iraq are free [... and we'll lead with the one inarguable benefit of the war, that Iraqis no longer live under tyranny. Fascinating contrast with last year's speech. Then, the suffering of people inside Iraq was mentioned only in the 14th paragraph of the Iraq section, after 13 paragraphs laying out the evidence of international menace from Saddam Hussein's regime. E.g., "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction—but why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack." This middle section of the 2003 speech repays careful re-reading. Having broken the Baathist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. Men who ran away from our troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows. [Answer to another recent criticism: that the resistance in Iraq is not Saddamite "bitter enders" but in fact international terrorists who view this as the place for a showdown with the United States.]

These killers, *joined by foreign terrorists,* [a "to be sure" phrase, to avoid critiques in the press] are a serious, continuing danger. Yet we're making progress against them. The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids every a week.[Anyone who has heard a military briefing knows how tempting it is to use these numerical "input" measures. Anyone who remembers or has read about body-count briefings during the Vietnam War knows that the temptation should be resisted.] We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.

The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right. [Deceptively simple sentence making a crucial Administration point: Just because things are dicey in Baghdad, we're still right to have gone in.] And America has always been willing to do what it takes for what is right. Last January, Iraq's only law was the whim of one brutal man. Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. [Good two-sentence contrast.] We're working with Iraqis and the United Nations [Hey, wait a minute....] to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June. As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear. [Useful quote to pull out later this year, in case things get dicier in Baghdad. "We have always been clear about the challenges and difficulties we face. But free people...."] They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends—but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. The killers will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom.

Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security and their own future. And tonight we are honored to welcome one of Iraq's most respected leaders: the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi. Sir, America stands with you and the Iraqi people as you build a free and peaceful nation. [To his credit, George W. Bush has been a lot more subtle about using the "human prop box," the distinguished visitors who sit alongside the First Lady to illustrate different themes in his speech, than some of his predecessors have been. (Speechwriters refer to these guests collectively as "Lenny Skutnicks," after the civil servant who heroically pulled people from the icy Potomac after an airline crash in 1981. Ronald Reagan seated Skutnick next to Nancy Reagan in the guest box, and singled him out during the speech, thereby starting a mawkish tradition.]

Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible—and no one can now doubt the word of America. [Another important "argument" paragraph: our war in Iraq can't be judged just on its own terms but also by its spillover effect on other regimes. We said this would lead to a safer world, and here's an illustration.]

Different threats require different strategies. [Answer to the question: If Iraq's hypothetical WMD threat justified an invasion, what about North Korea's much more advanced nuclear program?] Along with nations in the region, we're insisting that North Korea eliminate its nuclear program. America and the international community are demanding that Iran meet its commitments and not develop nuclear weapons. America is committed to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous regimes.

When I came to this rostrum on September the 20th, 2001, [reminder of the best speech he has given, and one of the best by a President in recent decades] I brought the police shield of a fallen officer, my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. I gave to you and to all Americans my complete commitment to securing our country and defeating our enemies. And this pledge, given by one, has been kept by many. You in the Congress have provided the resources for our defense, and cast the difficult votes of war and peace. Our closest allies have been unwavering. America's intelligence personnel and diplomats have been skilled and tireless.

And the men and women of the American military—they have taken the hardest duty. We've seen their skill and courage in armored charges, and midnight raids, and lonely hours on faithful watch. We have seen the joy when they return, and felt the sorrow when one is lost. I have had the honor of meeting our servicemen and women at many posts, from the deck of a carrier in the Pacific [Karl Rove must have been asleep: even in this subtle way the President does not want to recall memories of the "Mission Accomplished" visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln, "in the Pacific" a few miles off San Diego], to a mess hall in Baghdad. Many of our troops are listening tonight. And I want you and your families to know: America is proud of you. And my Administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.

I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime—a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, and tried, and convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States—and war is what they got. [This paragraph doesn't address the "terrorism as crime" argument in its strongest terms. But it acknowledges the existence of the idea, which is a step toward reasoned discourse.]

Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. [Parallel to Joseph Lieberman's attack on Howard Dean, during Dean's palmy days. Lieberman said: If we listened to you, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Similarly Bush says, if you were against the war, you were implicitly for Saddam Hussein. This defines out of consideration the basis for much opposition, which was disagreement about how and when such a war should be waged. Therefore very effective for the President's side of the argument.] We're seeking all the facts—already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities [This is the other most-carefully-edited sentence in the speech] and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world. Iraq's torture chambers would still be filled with victims—terrified and innocent. The killing fields of Iraq—where hundreds of thousands of men, and women and children vanished into the sands—would still be known only to the killers. For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. [Again, the welcome step of acknowledging and attempting to rebut an actual argument. But this rebuttal is much less effective than the previous paragraph. The President was wise enough not to mention countries like Tonga, which was part of the wartime coalition. But this list is not tremendously convincing—especially since, in delivery, he stopped halfway through, and then, as if he had remembered, added countries like El Salvador.] This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. [A closing line that is punchy but that the Administration could come to regret. At one level, it's obviously true. A sovereign nation, by definition, needs no one's "permission" to defend itself. But you can imagine Wesley Clark or John Kerry—OK, you can imagine Bill Clinton—explain how getting international support differs from a "permission slip."]

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. [I'll say it again: another acknowledgement of a criticism, another offer of rebuttal. These two sentences sum up a powerful but under-publicized rationale for the Iraq policy: that if Latin Americans and Asian can have democratic government, it is unfair, even racist, to assume that the Islamic world will not.] I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom.[One of the President's consistent achievements is to send signals that will resonate with many of his supporters, while going right over the heads of many critics. The idea that international liberty fulfills God's law, as opposed to realizing some secular concept of human rights, is very important to part of his religious base.] And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, and despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. [Another argument! Cleaning up Iraq may be messy, but we'll never be safe as long as we let the Middle East fester. Agree or disagree, this speech lays out a more thorough case for the war than anything the President said before the fighting began. With the ebbing of the WMD threat, it also more closely resembles the "neo-con" arguments before the war—that dealing with Iraq was an indispensable step toward a more stable Middle East and therefore a safer world.] So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom [this phrase—the forward strategy of freedom—sums up what has replaced the WMD issue] in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends. To cut through the barriers of hateful propaganda, the Voice of America and other broadcast services are expanding their programming in Arabic and Persian—and soon, a new television service will begin providing reliable news and information across the region. I will send you a proposal to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy, and to focus its new work on the development of free elections, and free markets, free press, and free labor unions in the Middle East. And above all, we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world.

America is a nation with a mission—and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace—a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: ["Special calling" sends another selective signal. A secular audience may hear it as a recognition of America's disproportionate power, or its Declaration of Independence birthright. To others it suggests divine mission.] This great republic will lead the cause of freedom.

In the last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. [OK: Now we'll talk about domestic policy. This is a barely trying transition from foreign to domestic issues, held together by the "also."] We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.[This last sentence will rally the already-convinced but not bring new members to the team. Last time I'll make this point: When it comes to tax and economic policy, this speech merely asserts positions and slogans—as opposed to taking criticisms semi-seriously, as it does about Iraq.]

You have doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax [Triumph of political rhetoric: you barely hear the term "estate tax" or "inheritance tax" any more], reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.

Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. New home construction: the highest in almost 20 years. Home ownership rates: the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. [Dangerous sentence. If they're growing, imports are growing faster—thus the trade deficit and falling dollar.] Productivity is high. And jobs are on the rise. [Historically, the unemployment rate has mattered more than the overall growth rate in affecting presidential elections. Therefore the Democrats will stress the net job loss during the last three years—and the Administration will find ways to define employment as being "on the rise."]

These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have—and you were right to return it. [See "sloganeering" point, above.]

America's growing economy is also a changing economy. As technology transforms the way almost every job is done, America becomes more productive, and workers need new skills. Much of our job growth will be found in high-skilled fields like health care and biotechnology. So we must respond by helping more Americans gain the skills to find good jobs in our new economy.

All skills begin with the basics of reading and math, which are supposed to be learned in the early grades of our schools. Yet for too long, for too many children, those skills were never mastered. By passing the No Child Left Behind Act, you have made the expectation of literacy the law of our country. We are providing more funding for our schools—a 36 percent increase since 2001. We're requiring higher standards. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing. We are making progress toward excellence for every child in America.

But the status quo always has defenders. [The President's speeches are often masterful in the rhetorical device of the "false choice." We can move ahead, or we can slink backwards. We can support the No Child Left Behind Act, or cling to the inglorious status quo.] Some want to undermine the No Child Left Behind Act by weakening standards and accountability. Yet the results we require are really a matter of common sense: We expect third graders to read and do math at the third-grade level—and that's not asking too much. Testing is the only way to identify and help students who are falling behind.

This nation will not go back to the days of simply shuffling children along from grade to grade without them learning the basics. I refuse to give up on any child—and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America's children.

At the same time, we must ensure that older students and adults can gain the skills they need to find work now. Many of the fastest-growing occupations require strong math and science preparation, and training beyond the high school level. So tonight I propose a series of measures called Jobs for the 21st Century. This program will provide extra help to middle—and high school students who fall behind in reading and math, expand advanced placement programs in low-income schools, and invite math and science professionals from the private sector to teach part-time in our high schools. I propose larger Pell grants for students who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school. I propose increasing our support for America's fine community colleges, I do so they can train workers for the industries that are creating the most new jobs. By all these actions, we'll help more and more Americans to join in the growing prosperity of our country. [As a logical matter, it's hard to square this—and several other—commitments to new programs with the emphasis on leaving money in citizens' hands and making all tax cuts permanent. In the long run, this is the root of the emerging right-wing concern about a big-spending Administration. Within the confines of a SOTU address, however, something-for-everyone is the traditional way to go.]

Job training is important, and so is job creation. We must continue to pursue an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda.

Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act, unless you act, unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. [Nice line.] Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What the Congress has given, the Congress should not take away: [This one too.] For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent. [Nice try—linking what the Democrats most oppose, permanent tax cuts, with what they say they most support, job growth. Suspect that not one vote or mind was changed by this line, though.]

Our agenda for jobs and growth must help small business owners and employees with relief from needless federal regulation, and protect them from junk and frivolous lawsuits. Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run—so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. ["What were they thinking?" department: I predict that some scholar or politician, sometime in the not too distant future, will note that while American troops were at war in the oil-supplying Middle East, and while America's trade deficit was ballooning, an hour-long speech contained exactly one sentence about energy supplies and conservation. ] My administration is promoting free and fair trade, to open up new markets for America's entrepreneurs, and manufacturers, and farmers, to create jobs for American workers. [And another sentence on the world trading system.] Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.

And we should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayer dollars. In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. [Thought going through every Congressman's and Senator's mind: Yeah, sure, that will be interesting to see. In this speech we're hearing about program increases and tax decreases.] This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.

[Here we move unashamedly into the "laundry list" stage of the speech—each paragraph ticking off an item from the policy list. Now—immigration!] Tonight I also ask you to reform our immigration laws, so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. I propose a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the job. This reform will be good for our economy—because employers will find needed workers in an honest and orderly system. A temporary worker program will help protect our homeland—allowing border patrol and law enforcement to focus on true threats to our national security. I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life. [Closest thing to an actual argument on a domestic topic.]

Our nation's health care system, like our economy, is also in a time of change. Amazing medical technologies are improving and saving lives. This dramatic progress has brought its own challenge, in the rising costs of medical care and health insurance. Members of Congress, we must work together to help control those costs and extend the benefits of modern medicine throughout our country. [Another thought in all minds: yes, and the way we'll do that is.....?]

Meeting these goals requires bipartisan effort—and two months ago, you showed the way. By strengthening Medicare and adding a prescription drug benefit, you kept a basic commitment to our seniors: You are giving them the modern medicine they deserve. Starting this year, under the law you passed, seniors can choose to receive a drug discount card, saving them 10 to 25 percent off the retail price of most prescription drugs—and millions of low-income seniors can get an additional $600 to buy medicine. Beginning next year, seniors will have new coverage for preventive screenings against diabetes and heart disease, and seniors just entering Medicare can receive wellness exams.

In January of 2006, seniors can get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. For a monthly premium of about $35, most seniors who do not have that coverage today can expect to see their drug bills cut roughly in half. Under this reform, senior citizens will be able to keep their Medicare just as it is, or they can choose a Medicare plan that fits them best—just as you, as members of Congress, can choose an insurance plan that meets your needs. And starting this year, millions of Americans will be able to save money tax-free for their medical expenses, in a health savings account. [So we're spending more for Medicare, and offering more tax-sheltered savings.]

I signed this measure proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors, or to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto. [Good, clear declaration—especially considering that Bush is the first President in 180 years not to veto a single act during a Congressional term.]

On the critical issue of health care, our goal is to ensure that Americans can choose and afford private health care coverage that best fits their individual needs. To make insurance more affordable, Congress must act to address rapidly rising health care costs. Small businesses should be able to band together and negotiate for lower insurance rates, so they can cover more workers with health insurance—I urge you to pass Association Health Plans. I ask you to give lower-income Americans a refundable tax credit that would allow millions to buy their own basic health insurance. By computerizing health records, we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care. To protect the doctor-patient relationship, and keep good doctors doing good work, we must eliminate wasteful and frivolous medical lawsuits. And tonight I propose that individuals who buy catastrophic health care coverage, as part of our new health savings accounts, be allowed to deduct 100 percent of the premiums from their taxes.

A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America's health care the best in the world.

[Here begins Part Three of the speech. Part one was foreign policy, building to Iraq; part two, domestic policy, building toward the laundry list. Part three could be called "rallying the base"—social proposal of particular importance to the Republicans' conservative wing.] We are living in a time of great change—in our world, in our economy, in science and medicine. Yet some things endure—courage and compassion, reverence and integrity, respect for differences of faith and race. The values we try to live by never change. And they are instilled in us by fundamental institutions, such as families, and schools, and religious congregations. These institutions—these unseen pillars of civilization—must remain strong in America, and we will defend them.

We must stand with our families to help them raise healthy, responsible children. When it comes to helping children make right choices, there is work for all of us to do.

One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs. Our government is helping parents confront this problem, with aggressive education, treatment, and law enforcement. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the last two years. Four hundred thousand fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in the year 2001. In my budget, I have proposed new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs. Drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part of this effort. So tonight I propose an additional 23 millions for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children's lives. The aim here is not to punish children, but to send them this message: We love you, and we do not want to lose you.

To help children make right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message—that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character. So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now. [How does Tom Brady, of the New England Patriots, feel about being the Lenny Skutnick of this passage—not referred to by the President, but focused-on by the TV cameras? Each of the President's SOTU addresses has included a surprise element. Last year, it was the costly and ambitious internal AIDS effort. This year—steroids out of professional sports.]

To encourage right choices, we must be willing to confront the dangers young people face—even when they're difficult to talk about. Each year, about three million teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases that can harm them, or kill them, or prevent them from ever becoming parents. In my budget, I propose a grassroots campaign to help inform families about these medical risks. We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. [A line that is not designed to change anyone's mind but instead to assure the religious base that the President stands with them.] Decisions children now make can affect their health and character for the rest of their lives. All of us—parents, schools, government—must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children. ["Negative influence of the culture" is also a freighted term for many of the President's fundamentalist supporters.]

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. [This is the other surprise element: implicitly supporting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. The President's approach differs from that of the last two Republican Presidents. Ronald Reagan talked about "social issues" but spent almost no political capital on them—he never seriously pushed an anti-abortion measure. The first George Bush seemed too uninterested in these matters, and was deserted by his base.] Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

The outcome of this debate is important—and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.

It is also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions. Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country—mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. [From the mouth of a liberal politician, this list of religious symbols might be criticized as PC-style multiculturalism. Starting right after September 11, President Bush has been careful to mention Islam as one of America's component religions.] By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again.

In the past, we've worked together to bring mentors to the children of prisoners, and provide treatment for the addicted, and help for the homeless. Tonight I ask you to consider another group of Americans in need of help. This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison. So tonight, I propose a four-year, 300 million dollar Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups. America is the land of second chance—and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life. [This proposal can do double-duty: implicitly appealing to liberals, and its theme of rebirth and redemption has a conservative religious appeal. As for the funding...]

For all Americans, the last three years have brought tests we did not ask for, and achievements shared by all. By our actions, we have shown what kind of nation we are. In grief, we have found the grace to go on. [Will stop making the point, but: another turn of phrase that will be meaningful to a religious audience and seem unexceptionable to others.] In challenge, we rediscovered the courage and daring of a free people. In victory, we have shown the noble aims and good heart of America. And having come this far, we sense that we live in a time set apart. [OK, I won't stop making the point: the idea of a time set apart also has powerful religious connotations.]

I've been a witness to the character of the American people, who've shown calm in times of danger, compassion for one another, and toughness for the long haul. All of us have been partners in a great enterprise. And even some ofthe youngest understand that we are living in historic times. Last month a girl in Lincoln, Rhode Island, sent me a letter. It began, "Dear George W. Bush." "If there is anything you know, I Ashley Pearson age 10 can do to help anyone, please send me a letter and tell me what I can do to save our country." She added this P.S.: "If you can send a letter to the troops—please put, 'Ashley Pearson believes in you.'" [The touching anecdote from John Q. Public has become one of the hokiest aspects of modern political oratory. I can't believe it's very effective, since everyone knows that the politician went shopping for the anecdote that best fit his pre-existing view—rather than developing or changing his views based on what he's heard from average people on the street. To his credit, President Bush uses them more sparingly than most of the Democratic candidates have been doing recently. Interesting anomaly: I can't remember Al Sharpton ever using one of these stories.]

Tonight, Ashley, your message to our troops has just been conveyed. And yes, you have some duties yourself. Study hard in school, listen to your mom or dad, help someone in need, and when you and your friends see a man or woman in uniform, say, "Thank you." [Subtle—perhaps even unconscious—response to one of the deepest criticisms of the President's leadership of the anti-terror effort: That for the tiny minority of Americans actually in the military, this has indeed been a war—while no one else has really been asked to make any sacrifice at all. Here the President spells out what one elementary-school student can do, and in the process scores another cultural point. People in the "red state" military culture know that it is customary to say "Thank you for your service" when seeing a person in uniform. This is not the universal practice in "blue state" America.] And, Ashley, while you do your part, all of us here in this great chamber will do our best to keep you and the rest of America safe and free.

My fellow citizens, we now move forward, with confidence and faith. Our nation is strong and steadfast. The cause we serve is right, because it is the cause of all mankind. The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable—and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. [One last signal that the President will be guided not just by worldly concerns but by faith in a divine plan. The most secular part of his audience will barely notice this; the most religious part will see him speaking right to them.] And in all that is to come, we can know that his purposes are just and true. [Fascinating transcription difference. In the New York Times version of the speech, the word "his," before "purposes," is not capitalized. The official White House release ends with the assurance, "His purposes are just and true."]

May God continue to bless America. [And may some President or presidential candidate finally have the courage not to end every speech this way. The problem with the formulation is that it is used so often that it has lost all meaning, like "Have a nice day." Proof that it was not always this way: Jimmy Carter, an even more openly religious president than George W. Bush, never once ended a State of the Union address with this cliché. Instead he would close with words like these from 1980: "Together let us make of this time of challenge and danger a decade of national resolve and of brave achievement."

Overall: in policy and political terms, the best thing about the speech is its attempt to rebut criticisms of the policy in Iraq. As a matter of craft, the speech was impressive in the series of subtle but effective signals the President sent his base. The worst aspect of the speech is indistinguishable from the greatest problem with the Administration's domestic policy: a laundry list of new initiatives, and no money to pay for them.]

What do you think? Discuss this article in Post & Riposte.

Annotations copyright © 2004 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.