SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (18545)12/3/2003 10:10:44 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 793866
 
W., Underestimated
The surprisingly good speeches of President Bush.
By Michael Novak
The London newspaper editorialists put protective cover over their high praise for President Bush's recent address at Whitehall Palace by insisting that it was much better than his usual speeches. It was, they said, clear, direct, substantive, a powerful tour d'horizon, evocative, and touched with understated, well-rendered humor. It was a triumph, they concluded — unlike his usual speeches.
A familiar refrain, this. Before any key event, press commentary on the upcoming performance of George W. Bush is nearly always dismissive. The president's supposed faults are caricatured. Gloom about how poorly he will do is widespread. Then, virtually always, if the event is important enough, the president steps to the plate, gets a solid extra-base hit, and drives in a few more runs.

It was like this at his inaugural address — it had been like this at his address accepting the nomination of his party the summer before. He always does better than predicted. The opponents he has defeated in debates, the prognosticators of failure, and all his detractors, continue invincibly to "misunderestimate" him. And to cover over the reality of his triumphs with the veils of their own ironclad preconceptions.

COMMANDING PERFORMANCES
I have just reviewed two collections of the president's speeches since he has been in office, the first covering the first three months of his term (January 20 — April 19, 2001), including his surprisingly praised inaugural address, and the second, which covers the painful year following September 11, 2001, that is, the first twelve months of the war against terrorism.

These 32 or more speeches compare favorably with any collection of Ronald Reagan's best speeches. Consistency is their main virtue — a consistently high level of rhetorical power, satisfying to the soul as well as to the occasion. While some of Reagan's speeches soared higher, others fell off the mark by being a little over-written. Reagan, of course, could pull off reading any speech well, when necessary bringing to bear just enough personal schmalz to carry off even the over-written ones with good effect. He could signal with a knowing nod that even if his words got a little fancy, he was still just a local boy from a small town in Illinois.

George W. is more plainspoken than Reagan, but capable of getting off quite moving and poetic lines of his own, when the occasion calls for it, as in his term it again and again has. On these occasions, W. usually (but not always) relies on shrewdly chosen words from the American tradition to carry him, whose sentiments he obviously feels keenly. Just behind his plainspokenness, one can see a serious, deeply convicted man. Accused in Britain of being "moralistic," President Bush reminded a nationwide audience that it was from men like Lord Shaftesbury and William Wilberforce, whose activist crusades swept slavery from the Atlantic, that Americans learned their morals, and from Britain that the Puritans in America snatched their moral fire.

American idealism and an American sense of history burn in his heart, as when he told the United Nations in New York (November 10, 2002): "We stand for the permanent hopes of humanity, and those hopes will not be denied....We did not ask for this mission, yet there is honor in history's call....This calling is worthy of any life, and worthy of every nation. So let us go forward, confident, determined, and unafraid."

Those last words capture much about this president: "Confident, determined, and unafraid."

Hear him tell the paratroopers at Fort Campbell, Kentucky (November 21, 2001): "Thanks to you, the people of Afghanistan have the hope of a better life. Thanks to you, many Afghan women are walking in public again, and walking with dignity." And then these concluding words: "Every one of you is dedicated to something greater than yourself. You put your country ahead of your comfort. You live by a code, and you fight for a cause. And I'm honored to be your Commander-in-Chief."

Simple. Declarative. Straight from the shoulder — and straight to the proud military heart.

Everyone at Fort Campbell knew that President Bush was putting his whole presidency on the line. There were so many ways in which the Afghanistan campaign could have gone wrong. Afghanistan had bogged down whole Soviet armies for ten years. The troops from Fort Campbell and elsewhere had done miracles.

"LET'S ROLL"
Just two months after that fateful September 11, the president told a crowd in Atlanta (November 8, 2001): "The moment the second plane hit the second building — when we knew it was a terrorist attack — many felt that our lives would never be the same." He added a great deal of exact detail, which practically all listeners could vividly remember. Then a few moments later, he drew his words to this conclusion:

Courage and optimism led the passengers on Flight 93 to rush their murderers to save lives on the ground, led by a young man whose last known words were the Lord's Prayer and 'Let's roll.' He didn't know he had signed on for heroism when he boarded the plane that day. Some of our greatest moments have been acts of courage for which no one could have ever prepared.
We will always remember the words of that brave man, expressing the spirit of a great country. We will never forget all we have lost, and all we are fighting for. Ours is the cause of freedom. We've defeated freedom's enemies before, and will defeat them again.

We cannot know every turn this battle will take. Yet we know our cause is just and our ultimate victory is assured. We will, no doubt, face new challenges. But we have our battle orders: My fellow Americans, let's roll.

There they are again. Those terse declarative sentences, laden with heavy historical memory and present emotion but seemingly matter-of-fact, like much of the best of American writing down the generations. Ending in "Let's roll." Brave men hurrying one-by-one down the aisle to the call of duty, even unto death.

Then, still closer to the event itself, not even ten days after September 11, the president told a Joint Session of the U.S. Congress in the once targeted but still-standing Capitol Building: "I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."

Even earlier, while wisps of bitter smoke still rose from the ruins of the Twin Towers in New York, at the Day of National Prayer and Remembrance in National Cathedral on September 14, the president recalled several heroes: the man in the towers who had stayed till the end with a quadriplegic friend; a priest who had died giving the last rites to a fireman; two office workers who carried a disabled stranger down 68 floors to safety; and a group of men who drove day and night from Dallas to Washington to bring skin grafts for war victims. "In these acts," the president said,

and in many others, Americans showed a deep commitment to one another, and an abiding love for our country. Today, we feel what Franklin Roosevelt called the warm courage of national unity....
America is a nation full of good fortune, with so much to be grateful for. But we are not spared from suffering. In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America, because we are freedom's home and defender. And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time.

In these words, and many others, the President Bush spoke for the whole of America's traditions. Other presidents had done the same before him. He spoke with that particular sense of history, and sin, and tragedy, and duty, that has always marked our nation, steeped in a Protestant reading of history as old as St. Augustine's The City of God. A vision of ever-recurrent human ambition, greed, pride, overreaching, betrayal, cruelty, the vision that often marks the pages of The Federalist, steeling the heart in a sense of duty, confidence, optimism and chosen-ness, as if it is self-evident that hard times deliver a special calling, great tasks are what the luckiest of humans are made for, and the generations chosen for the hardest tasks of all are history's ennobled ones.

ALL-AMERICAN PHILOSOPHY
There is a depth and ballast to the president's speeches that few have remarked, a powerful philosophy of history, an Actonian concentration on liberty as the scarlet thread of human affairs, their interpretive key. To have this vision, it is not necessary to be a philosopher. It is enough to be an American, and to love the nation's history, and to walk in silence over its sacred spots, to dream its dreams, and to see in its dark nights "the better angels of our nature."

The president's eloquence on formal occasions is right before our eyes. We have felt it. We have been moved by it. Again and again, he has surprised his chroniclers by how beautifully he has spoken when the occasion called for it. And then so many of his critics have gone right back to thinking of him as Mrs. Malaprop, even (God forbid) the moron. What a tragic sense of unreality grips his critics, not only about this president, but about the world he so realistically describes for them as he fulfills the rhetorical mission of the presidency. A curious, almost willful blindness afflicts them. Fortunately, the brave men and women who lay down their lives for all of us seem to hear him loud and true. The soldiers, the firemen, the cops in the street love him.

President Bush is just as good in the crucial unscripted moments of his presidency, as when he shouted out at Ground Zero three days after the horrors, after a worker in the crowd interrupted him: "I can't hear you."

The president replied through a yellow bullhorn slowly and distinctly: "I can hear you. (Applause.) I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. (Applause.) And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. (Applause.)"

The exhausted, back-straining crowd understood him perfectly, for they shouted back instantaneously: "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

The president's State of the Union message just before the war in Iraq — much attacked by his domestic enemies many months later, but much cheered at the time — and then his later speeches at West Point, at the American Enterprise Institute, and before the National Endowment for Democracy, crowned by the world-acclaimed address in London this November, rank with any brace of speeches by any president, laying out an entirely new strategic concept for their time. Of the London speech, an op-ed in The Independent (usually one of the more anti-Bush papers), said it was "the finest piece of political oratory since the era of Kennedy and DeGaulle."

For in these major speeches the president has been meticulously painting the image, not just of a war against terrorism but, instead, of a long, world-changing, multi-frontal struggle for worldwide democracy and human rights, especially in the lands where these have been the most neglected for the last 50 years, in the Arab and other lands of the Middle East.

His is a new strategic vision for the Middle East, not just military and not just political, but also cultural and aimed at the whole of civil society — from a free press to free associations, with ample space for multitudinous citizen initiatives. Democracy, he more than implies, requires much more than merely voting. (There is a precedent for the beginnings of a Middle Eastern liberal society in the Egyptian "golden age of liberalism" from 1850-1940.)

Still, maybe this task cannot be accomplished now. Maybe it is biting off too much, at least in this generation. But as a vision for the long term, it can hardly be wrong. It is in accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and — perhaps, more to the point — with our own Declaration of Independence.

The rights that Americans claim are not American rights, but natural rights, which belong to every human being on this planet, most emphatically including Muslims and Arabs. As the president himself said in London: "It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it." Almost single-handedly, the president (and Prime Minister Blair) are stirring the world to match its deepest convictions with courage.

Their words are brave, and their actions braver. They have put their careers on the line for the liberty of millions yet unfree.

EDITOR’S NOTE: National Review's collection of George W. Bush speeches can be purchased here.

— Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.



To: calgal who wrote (18545)12/3/2003 10:10:58 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793866
 
Jobs, economy key pocketbook issues in election year
By Mike Madden | Gannett News Service
WAYNE, N.J. — Roy Frank has a master’s degree in business and years of experience in the chemical and telecommunications industries.
But these days, he sells men’s suits at Macy’s, earning less than half of what he used to before a small consulting firm laid him off earlier this year. And if you ask him, the tax cuts President Bush insists will jumpstart the economy are no help.

“You take a look at Bush’s policies … nothing is trickling down,” said Frank, 44, of Clifton, N.J. “He’s not going to get my vote by default.”

A year before voters decide whether to re-elect Bush, the economy already looms as one of the fundamental issues in the presidential campaign. Though the last three months saw a blistering 7.2 percent increase in the nation’s economic output and new jobs added for the first time since Bush took office, people are still worried about holding on to their jobs. Like Frank, many say they’re frustrated about having to take service-sector jobs that don’t pay well. Even some of Bush’s supporters say they’re not sure the administration’s policies are on the right path.

Roy Frank, of Clifton, N.J., sells suits at Willowbrook Mall in Wayne N.J., (Gannett News Service, Rohanna Mertens)

The whole issue touches on one of the most basic questions voters ask themselves when they pick a president: “Am I better off now than I was four years ago?”

The numbers don’t paint a rosy picture, despite some signs of improvement.

More than 2.6 million jobs have been lost during the Bush administration — the worst record on jobs for any president since Herbert Hoover led at the beginning of the Great Depression. Nine million Americans are looking for work without luck. A USA TODAY-CNN-Gallup Poll during the first week of November showed 70 percent of the public rated the economy fair or poor.

The nine Democrats vying for their party’s nomination to take on Bush next year say voters are uneasy enough about pocketbook concerns that Bush could be beaten. Republicans, meanwhile, say the massive $1.7 trillion in tax cuts Bush championed in 2001 and 2003 will turn the economy around well before voters go to the polls.

“Now we will see whether his policies bear fruit,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, a Pennsylvania-based consulting firm. “It’s certainly borne fruit in the short term. He’s juiced things up — but the question is, will this last?”

Jobs or Iraq?

New economic statistics may herald the beginning of a recovery. In October, employers hired 126,000 workers, adding jobs for the third consecutive month. Nationwide, the unemployment rate in October was 6 percent, down from 6.1 percent in September. A total of 138 million people, out of the country’s population of about 280 million, had jobs in October.

The key question over the next year will be how voters perceive the economy and whether Bush is doing a good job of managing it. The USA TODAY poll showed 47 percent of the public approves of Bush’s handling of the economy, up from 42 percent a month ago.

“I say the economy is getting better,” said Gene Schroeder, a retired general manager of an auto dealership in Oshkosh, Wis. “I think President Bush is doing a fine job in all respects and doing the best job he can. … I will vote the same as my heart feels."

In Bergen and Passaic counties in northern New Jersey, where Wayne is located, the unemployment rate has been the same as or close to the national average. Residents here said they worry that the economy isn’t improving fast enough.

“I don’t spend as much as I used to on clothing,” said Gisela Mercado, 33, a schoolteacher from Haledon, N.J., who has guaranteed job security through her union but still feels uneasy. “My husband and I are saving up as much as we can just in case.”

People around the country raised similar concerns. Gannett News Service and reporters from 53 Gannett newspapers talked to dozens of people across the nation in October to get their thoughts on the economy and the presidential campaign.

David Peek, 29, said Bush is doing a good job when it comes to national security and the war on terrorism. “But I don’t agree with all his economic policies. If the economy doesn’t get better in the next year, it would affect who I vote for,” said Peek, a sanitation worker at the NASA facility in Cape Canaveral, Fla.

Indeed, Peek isn’t alone in believing Bush has focused on Iraq at the expense of the economy.

“With the war going on, it doesn't help,” said Shannon Mann, 25, a waitress and single mother from Holland Patent, N.Y. “Since that's been going on, the economy has been going down.”

No matter who the Democratic candidate against Bush is next year, there will be a dramatic difference in the prescriptions the two parties propose for the nation’s economic woes.

Even in campaigning, Bush pushed massive tax cuts as the best way to stimulate the economy. In 2001 and 2003, he persuaded Congress to pass some of the largest cuts in the nation’s history.

“I think he’s doing a great job,” said Queen Smith, a medical records technician from Hattiesburg, Miss., who voted for Bush in 2000. “I’m satisfied with his work.”

Bush’s cuts included some help for middle-class workers, like a $1,000-per-child tax credit for most families. But they also disproportionately helped the rich by eliminating the tax on inherited estates, reducing those on investment dividends and capital gains, and lowering the rate that the wealthiest taxpayers pay on their income.

Bush "really feels things are getting better, and I think he is addressing the wrong class of people,” said Porter Williams, 61, of Valley Springs, S.D. “As long as the tax breaks go to the wealthy, we are going to lose jobs.”

Cutting taxes

The Bush tax cuts also contributed to an exploding federal budget deficit, now projected to be over $480 billion in 2004 after years of record surpluses. The deficit will require future taxpayers to pay off interest for decades to come.

But the president says the cuts helped keep the economy from slumping further. New figures on gross domestic product, measured by adding up the total value of goods and services produced in the country, showed the economy grew faster than it had in almost 20 years.

“By reducing taxes, this administration kept a promise,” Bush told a crowd in Birmingham, Ala., during a recent trip to promote his economic policies. We did the right thing, at the right time, for the American economy.”

All the Democrats running for president have called for canceling most of the tax cuts, at least for the wealthiest Americans. That would amount to raising taxes on people who make more than about $200,000 a year.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt would roll back all the tax cuts, including some for middle-class taxpayers, because they say the cuts took too much money — and flexibility for other programs — away from the government. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards would only eliminate cuts for the rich.

Instead of the sweeping tax cuts under Bush, most of the Democrats would give targeted tax incentives to employers so they can hire new workers. The idea is to stimulate the economy quickly without adding to deficits in the long term, they say.

With a year of campaigning to go before the presidential election, few voters say they’re paying close attention to the particulars of the deficit or the intricate details of tax cuts. What is more important to them is whether the president has their best interests at heart.

“He needs to keep a positive outlook,” said Eric Lauersdorf, 21, from Sheboygan, Wis. “I think he does a good job with that — (making) sure we’re not going into a panic.”

Political strategists from both parties are already trying to convince voters that their side has the right answer.

The political stakes are high. Voters who say they are worried about the job market say they would be willing to vote for Bush if things turned around.

“We need a president who will stoke up the economy,” said Liz Hanley, a youth services coordinator at the public library in Muskogee, Okla. If Bush could do that, she said, “he might get elected to another four years.”

If the economy does not improve enough, though, Bush may have trouble.

“If I don't see things getting better, that changes whether I am going to vote for the same person again or not, and I don't expect things to get better,” said Melissa Rodriguez, 25, of Fort Myers, Fla.

Democratic candidates have tried not to let Bush take too much credit for the economic growth and pointed out less glowing statistics that they say paint a more realistic picture.

“The letters ‘G-D-P,’ I think, mean exceedingly little to people that are looking for a J-O-B,” said Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Kerry until he resigned Tuesday. “Numbers are fine. But jobs is what people are looking for, and until they find them, the president is going to continue to be in a lot of economic hot water.”