Decoding Bush’s address

IN Media Practice | 04/02/2006

Dasu Krishnamoorty

For two reasons references President Bush made to India in his State of the Union message are significant for Indian media: first, he is scheduled to visit the country next month and second, he has also been mentioning India frequently in the context of Iran’s dispute with the IAEA and the west. Both the Indian and American media used the feather to discomfit Bush on his message. The Indian media isolated for comment Bush’s remarks on the ascent of China and India in the global economy. Chidanand Rajghatta of the Times of India pointed out how Bush, citing China and India as "new competitors" in a dynamic world economy, had said that the way to meet the challenge was not to escape competition or wall off the economy and the borders, but to kindle America`s inventive spirit with better education and breakthrough energy technologies, even as the country continued to accept legal immigration since the American economy could not function without immigrants. The new Bush stance certainly is a response to the mounting media criticism at home about the loss of jobs due to outsourcing and indifference to math and science teaching.

The TOI report said, "In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline, Bush said in a 55-minute address delivered at a time his popularity is at an all time low. Besides the allusion to India in the economic context, Bush made no other reference to it -- neither the nuclear deal which he needs to push through Congress nor his upcoming visit to New Delhi."

The Hindustan Times picked on the unusual to make a point—human cloning. HT’s edit found that "George W. Bush’s annual State of the Union address on Tuesday was along expected lines, more of thinking aloud on a host of issues that could make or mar his second term and his place in history. There were two issues, however, which could add to the series of embarrassments in the Bush administration’s domestic policy during the past 12 months. One, his reference to the controversial issue of human cloning: this may cause consternation in the medical community, as the president’s intention to prevent "human cloning in all its forms," would only serve to shelve crucial research for saving millions of lives.

"The second issue that could raise eyebrows — if in pleasant surprise — is the resolution to break America’s ‘addiction’ to imported oil. Of course, Mr Bush may not have had a choice in this, considering it’s an important election year for the Republicans and he must reassure Americans on domestic concerns." The second issue is rather the first issue prominently debated by all American media. Every newspaper dilated on the President’s remark "America is addicted to oil." PTI"s short report appropriately quoted the American president as saying, "The American economy is pre-eminent but we cannot afford to be complacent...In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors like China and India. This creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people`s fears. And so we are seeing some old temptations return."

Bush’s speech was so understated that the Deccan Herald wondered: "New Bush?" Maybe it is camouflage as the Herald rationalizes, "Mr Bush’s speech should not be seen as a change of heart. It merely signals a defensive President, who has been battered by sliding opinion poll ratings. It is aimed at winning back support ahead of mid-term Congressional elections. But the change is welcome." The Herald sounded rather disappointed that "In contrast to previous years, this year Mr Bush’s speech was free of offensive name-calling - he made no mention of an "axis of evil" while referring to countries like North Korea or Iran, for instance."

With a budget deficit of around $400-billion staring in the face, Bush stayed away from announcing extravagant initiatives. Most American newspapers highlighted the nation’s addiction to oil as the main feature of Bush’s speech. Commentaries were among expected lines, left, right, liberal, Democratic and Republican. "Bush Warns Against Shrinking Global Role," said the Washington Post, but led with the swearing-in of Justice Alito. The New York Times lead read, BUSH, RESETTING AGENDA, SAYS US MUST CUT RELIANCE ON OIL. BBC World, however, thought that the American media saw Bush as using his address to reassert control of the remainder of his presidency. The President’s mellow tone could be safely attributed to harsh political and financial realities confronting the Bush White House. Naturally, the Times was disappointed that the President’s emphasis on oil was in a low key.

The NYT editorial complained, "President Bush devoted two minutes and 15 seconds of his State of the Union speech to energy independence. It was hardly the bold signal we`ve been waiting for through years of global warming and deadly struggles in the Middle East, where everything takes place in the context of what Mr. Bush rightly called our "addiction" to imported oil." The editorial said that it was not "a matter to be lumped in a laundry list of other initiatives during a once-a-year speech to Congress." Other newspapers, however, agreed that Bush had laid enough emphasis on the energy problem. The Times complaint is justified if one goes only by the time devoted to oil dependence in Bush’s message.

The Washington Post too thought that Bush’s speech sounded more subdued than triumphant, more realistic than grandiose. In its editorial, the Post said, "If last night`s State of the Union speech displayed a more cautious, less assertive President Bush than in previous years, his caution was not merely a contrast to the swashbuckling style of the past but an outgrowth of it. The president`s future horizons are constrained by his past choices, budgetary and political." The Post found Bush at his most reasonable in calling for more spending on math and science. Yet the paper thought that it was not a bandwagon he invented. A recent report commissioned by Congress advanced similar ideas, and last week a bipartisan group of senators unveiled a bill that would enact the report`s agenda. The paper agreed that the President`s support was nonetheless welcome.

With three years more for him to quit office, Bush sounded less assured.  Behind him was the knowledge that Americans are concerned about the economy, tired of the Iraq war and not at all satisfied with the state’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Referring to domestic policy, Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times thought that Bush had struck the tone of a man searching for a fresh start. "With his own job performance numbers and approval ratings for the Republican-controlled Congress sagging only 10 months before the 2006 elections, Bush mostly advanced a cautious agenda that seemed to aim less at transforming the political debate than at helping the GOP survive a hostile political environment," the report said. In an editorial, USA Today, said, "State of the Union speeches are usually separated into a "foreign" section and a "domestic" one, often sounding as disconnected as Venus and Mars. But this year`s foreign theme, Iraq and terrorism, is deeply intertwined with the domestic theme of energy independence. Our "addiction" to oil, as Bush put it, is financing regimes that underwrite radical Islam. His acknowledgement of that connection — and his call to reduce Mideast oil imports 75% by 2025 — was as welcome as it was belated."

The Wall Street Journal,friend of the Bush administration,  exclusively concentrated on health because it believed that the President had, unusual for a Republican, made health care a key part of his speech. The paper said that the present system was a drag on wage growth "and health care costs may partly explain why many Americans don’t feel as good as they might about current economic expansion." Another supporter of the GOP, the New York Post endorsed Bush’s emphasis on security. In its editorial the Post quoted Bush as saying, "In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders." In the end, the Post promised, "We’ll take Bush’s way, thank you."

 Bush said the nation must not falter in what he called the central front in the war on terror but did not offer any timetable for bringing American troops home from Iraq.