« The Colts Indeed | Main | One Communicant, One Vote »

January 23, 2007

As I've often stated, watching the State of the Union Show Address is a waste of time, this year for three reasons.

First, Wendling's Rule of Oration: Politicians rarely, if ever, state anything important in public. We can expect Bush's speech to be bland, fatuous, and manicured -- essentially meaningless. As a small demonstration of this trend, let's recap the states of our Union over the past 13 years:

• 2006: Strong
• 2005: Confident and Strong
• 2004: Confident and Strong
• 2003: Strong
• 2002: Never been stronger
• 2000: Strongest it has ever been
• 1999: Strong
• 1998: Strong
• 1997: Strong
• 1996: Strong
• 1995: Stronger than it was two year ago
• 1994: Growing stronger

Update: It's official: the state of our Union is . . .

• 2007: Strong

Second, while the speech will be a dud, I'll concede that it will at least have some substance. Afterall, the state must have some statism. According to the Washington Times, Bush will ditch the laundry list format in favour of focusing on five major policy initiatives: "the global war on terrorism, health care, education, immigration and energy." Are you at all interested in what he has to say about any of these things? After six years in office, is it likely he will have just now come upon smart, savvy solutions for any of these problems? And that's assuming he's even sincere about anything he says.

Third, let's assume that among his proposals are a few good ideas (Arnold Kling expects at least one). Even if anyone is paying attention to his speech, the chances that he could get his policies through a Democratic Congress, especially while his approval ratings are at Nixonian levels, are slim-to-none. The only thing worse than a speech from a lame-duck is one delivered from a decidedly un-bully pulpit.

The silver lining to the implosion of the Bush Presidency is that it might usher in a decline of executive imperialism, a disease nicely captured in Gene Healy's annual polemic against the SotU Address, which quotes one Senator lamenting the practice as a "cheap and tawdry imitation of English royalty." Indeed.

Posted by Zach Wendling at January 23, 2007 12:22 PM

Comments

Posted by: Joshua Claybourn at January 23, 2007 02:03 PM | permalink

Posted by: JohnS at January 23, 2007 05:22 PM | permalink

Posted by: Foltz at January 23, 2007 05:40 PM | permalink

Posted by: Drew at January 23, 2007 06:15 PM | permalink

Posted by: DMD at January 24, 2007 10:55 AM | permalink

Post a comment