How Did Bush Do? - 2003 State of the Union

Delivered just a day after UN weapons inspectors delivered their report to the Security Council and in the wake of falling approval ratings, Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address to Congress was touted as the "speech of his life." In spite of the hype, to answer the question "How did Bush do?" we must use the same basic standard that we use to judge all speeches: Did the speech accomplish its goals? In Bush's case, did it inspire support for his policies?

Until the polls come in, the pundits weigh in with their opinions, and Congress begins voting on the specific programs proposed by Bush, it's impossible to answer this question definitely. However, by using the fundamental precepts of rhetoric, we can predict whether or not the American public is inclined to support the President because of what they heard in this speech and why.

We won't beat around the bush, the speech was ineffective.

In both style and substance, it was lackluster, off target, incomplete and inconsistent. Both Bush and his speechwriter, Michael Gerson, have disappointed and unfortunately for the Bush Administration, it will do little to shore up support for the President's agenda.

So, what went wrong?

Bush entered the room looking tired and tense. Some commentators interpreted this as "somberness." Bush's performance made it clear it was not intentional. There was a noticeable lack of energy in the House Chamber and he made several delivery stumbles indicative of fatigue and/or nerves.

In stark contrast to last year's address, he had a tough audience. The applause and traditional standing ovations were not as loud, not as sustained and definitely not as bi-partisan as last year's address.

Most important, the speech itself was pedestrian and dangerously off target, especially during the first half. Bush teased us by stating that his number one goal was a healthy economy and full employment and then rehashed old proposals for tax cuts. Not only have these arguments been only marginally successful in reassuring the American public in the past, the simple positioning of this topic in the speech as a whole was bad. If there is one area in which the Democrats are clearly united against Bush, it's the economy and tax cuts. The visual of a split Chamber, one half standing, one half sitting set a divisive tone that would dog the speech until almost the end.

Furthermore, these were the only ideas he had. There was a glaring absence of weight given to the economy. In number of words, speaking time, visible interest and energy of the President, Bush conveyed the impression that he does not share the American public's singular and anxious interest in the economy.

His handling of other domestic issues was, ironically for a Republican, more comprehensive and effective. Yet, the very effectiveness and completeness of those proposals made his relative disregard of the economy that much more obvious. For example, you can't help but admire and support his sincere commitment (backed up by $15 billion!) to AIDS relief in Africa. Yet even as the audience applauded, there was a palpable feeling of incredulity that this issue was getting as much time in the speech as the whole of his plan for creating jobs for American workers.

Last year, Bush came out of the State of the Union with Americans assured he understood their concerns and priorities and that he had the bi-partisan support of Congress. Last night he had neither. Bush's inability to convey real concern for the economy in his words and his delivery style seriously compromised the effectiveness of this speech.

He did not give the audience what they needed to hear.

But it's not all bad

There were brief moments where this public speaking expert sat back in disbelief and thought "He's really good here!" In particular, there were passages where he came across as a real pro, a brilliant public speaker. When he introduced his programs for funding hydrogen powered cars and AIDS relief in Africa, he was startling natural, charismatic, warm and authoritative. If he could apply that style consistently, he would be a remarkable speaker. Unfortunately, these moments were all the most obvious for their exceptionality.

He began to warm up in the second half of the speech that dealt with security and the fight against terrorism. He was resolute and very clear about his position. His words and style will not play well in the international community. He mentioned cooperation with the United Nations only to set off his willingness to move unilaterally (or as he euphemistically puts it, "leading a coalition" - a bit Orwellian actually) However, we must remember that his target audience is not the rest of the world. They don't vote in Congress and they don't vote for President. His target audience is comprised exclusively of Americans. Will they respond favorably to his determined statements? Congress was mixed. Although the Democrats were more inclined to show their support here than they were for the domestic portion of his speech (especially when the ghosts of 9/11 were invoked) they were still not nearly as enthusiastic as they were last year.

Perhaps to defuse concerns that he is fixated on Sadaam Hussein, Bush wisely devoted substantial time to the other two members of the "Axis of Evil", Iran and North Korea. When he did speak of Iraq, he used some very candid descriptions of the torture and genocide carried out there. This bluntness was unusual for the traditionally lofty State of the Union but most certainly provoked a visceral reaction in its listeners.
Overall however, he did nothing rhetorically to highlight new arguments or evidence for invasion.

The conclusion though short was the only real reminder we had that this was a Michael Gerson speech. It had the eloquence that the rest of the speech badly needed.

"A Tale of Two Speeches"

The State of the Union Address has always been a tricky balancing act. Trying to navigate the essential difference between domestic and foreign policy and weave them into a seamless and coherent statement of American intentions, the perennial tug of war between guns and butter. However, Bush's 2003 address only highlighted the dissimilarity and emphasized the inherent conflict many Americans feel exists between restoring the health of the American economy and the war on terrorism. It left its listeners confused and doubtful that this president can reconcile these two critical issues.

Did Bush accomplish his goals for this State of the Union? The Byzantine mind of Karl Rove makes this a difficult question to answer. Perhaps the Administration feels that the economy is not as important as homeland security and has top secret polling data to back that up. Maybe it just hoped to tread water on the domestic front so they could bring out the real rhetorical fireworks later when and if Bush does invade Iraq. But using the traditional yardstick by which the State of the Union is judged, Bush failed.

One last thought: The State of Union also illuminated the State of the Democrats. They're a mess. Not once could they, as a group, agree on whether to stand up or remain sitting. There were several times when Democrats, looking around at their colleagues would hesitate and then belatedly jump to their feet as if to say "Oops! Everyone else is standing and I don't want to look like I'm not supporting a position which everyone else supports" Regardless of whether or not you like their ideology, you have to admire the Republicans for their visible signs of party unity. It comes across very well on television.

Click on the year for analysis of Bush's 2002 and 2004 State of the Unions.

Click here for analysis of other important political speeches.