The president’s graciousness to the new Speaker, and mention of her father, set a tone of civility. And the president used that tone to argue for a series of creative domestic initiatives. His health plan moves in the direction of universal, government-subsidized, individual ownership of private health plans, the only feasible alternative to a statist reorganization of American health care. His immigration plan repudiates the worst, nativist elements of his own party, and has an improved chance of passage in the new Congress. His energy plan recognizes that reduced dependence on foreign oil is a national-security imperative, and his prominent mention of tighter CAFÉ (corporate average fuel economy) standards is a necessary departure from Republican orthodoxy.
On foreign policy, the president combined subtle analysis with a blunt appeal for patience. His historical comparison of the successes of the war on terror in 2005 with the challenges of 2006, when the terrorists and dictators “struck back,” and his explanation of Sunni and Shia radicalism, exceeded the usual level of State of the Union sophistication. The quietness of the chamber during this sober section was clearly attentive, not dismissive. Then he used the undeniable logic of this threat to argue for the importance of success in Iraq, concluding with a direct request for the Congress to support the military in their new strategy. Democrats did what they had to do: they applauded.
The Democratic response by Virginia Sen. James Webb was also memorable, in a different way. Whenever a politician puts out to the media that he has thrown away the speechwriters’ draft and written the remarks himself (as Webb did), it is often a sign of approaching mediocrity. This was worse. Senator Webb made liberal use of clichés: the middle class is “the backbone” of the country, which is losing its “place at the table.” I am not even sure there is a literary term for a mixed metaphor that crosses two clichés. And Senator Webb’s logic was as incoherent as his language (the two are often related). No “precipitous withdrawal”—but retreat “in short order.” Fight the war on terror vigorously—except where the terrorists have chosen to fight it. It is, perhaps, a good thing that James Webb earned a job as senator. As a speechwriter he would starve.
Perhaps the most compelling argument of the day was not made by President Bush or Senator Webb—and it was made in five words. Earlier in the day, General David Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. When asked if he could get his job done in Iraq without additional troops, he replied: “No, sir.” When asked if a congressional resolution of disapproval of the “surge” could encourage the enemy, he said, “That’s correct, sir.” Under these circumstances, it is hard to imagine what impulse of arrogance could cause Republican senators like Warner and Collins to actively undermine the operational judgment of a skilled commander in the field, at the beginning of a decisive military campaign. The next week or so will test the proposition: does the military chain of command end in the Oval Office or on the Senate floor? I live in Virginia—but I have never voted for either senator from Virginia to be commander in chief.
