My State of the Union

President Bush will tell us what he thinks of the state of the union tonight.

It's always political speech, regardless of who gives it.

They are always long on vision and never really engage in soul searching as a true state of the union should.

I spend a lot of time thinking about the state of our union, and I mostly refrain from posting my thoughts as they always seem to annoy about half my readers.

But every so often, I can't resist the temptation and tonight is one of those times.

I am unhappy with the state of our union.

On the foreign policy side, I see an activist government that is fighting a war on terrorism against an enemy we can't see and don't really understand.  We are fostering a civil war in Iraq that is catching our troops, our journalists, and many Iraqi citizens in its crossfire.  And I wonder how long we will sit in this crossfire before it is too painful to bear.  And I wonder where we draw the line on this interventionist policy.  Do we take the fight to Iran, to North Korea?  Do we have to go it basically alone?  Why won't the rest of the democratic world fight this war on terrorism alongside of us if it is so critical to the stability of the world?  And why has our international reputation fallen so far in the past decade?

But as troubling as the foreign policy picture is, I am even more distressed by the domestic scene.  We have oil companies like Exxon reporting earnings at the rate of $40bn per year.  And yet we have no real alternative energy policy in this country.  We have federal budget deftcits of close to $500bn compared to a surplus at the beginning of the decade.  We have rising interest rates suporting a dollar that is terribly weakened by a bankrupt fiscal policy.

We have senior citizens scared and confused by a market driven drug benefit policy they don't understand and don't like.  We have religious beliefs governing our thinking on issues like stem cell research and the morning after pill.

We have a goverment that is proud of the fact that it spies on its citizens.  A government that takes great pleasure in raising the specter of 9/11 every time someone questions the wisdom of its policies.  And a party that controls every branch of government and is once again proof that absolute power corrupts.

But I also see a minority party that is so bereft of ideas that it has been relugated to the back bench where it simply throws tomatoes at the guys in charge but does nothing more. I see a Democratic party that is led by an old guard that has lost the war but can't admit the defeat.

I see a Democratic party that remains built on age old foundations like labor and civl rights that are  cracking and buckling before our very eyes.

So President Bush can say all he wants tonight to make our country feel good about where it is and where it is going.  But it is not going to make me feel good.

I am tired of the Bushes and the Clintons, the Kennedys and the Delays, the Gores and the Cheneys.  I want them all gone.  I want new blood, new ideas, a new state of the union. Unfortunately I think I am in the minority on this.

Comments

[Rob]

I am certainly one of the ones who frequently disagrees with your political views (usually quietly).

We're in the same page on this thing, however - the U.S. political status quo is severely lacking. Though I consider myself "conservative", I feel that neither party comes close to matching my vision for this country. I passionately want a new state for this union. One where you and I feel like there is a government we can believe in.

I think 2 good first steps would be to reduce the role of money in politics (both in financing and in self-serving earkmarks), and to remove the barriers that hinder the entrance of more than 2 parties into the national dialogue. But that's just a start on what is truly a long road.

[Me]

Well, you've stated what you don't like. State what you would do about it.

*****

I am happy with the state of our union.

I'm glad that our foreign policy is based on developing democracies and supporting freedom. It's better than sitting on our asses while that region of the world falls completely apart.

I understand why Exxon makes a lot of money. It's a huge, huge, huge company with many, many, many business units. Compare revenue per employees and profit margings to the leading Internet companies, and you'll see that Exxon generates less cash on an employee and revenue basis.

Our budget deficits are reasonable. Read optimist123.com to understand that reporting only an absolute number makes no sense.

Yes, the drug benefit policy is stupid.

I'm glad that our government spies on citizens that MAY have a connection to terrorism.

If you want new ideas, suggest them.

[Barry Graubart]

Fred,
I don't think you are in the minority (at least among those who pay attention). I think many of us are fed up with both parties. The problem is that the system we have today makes an outsider almost an impossibility. The dollars alone mean that only those on the Forbes 100 list could fund it independently (President Page or Brin, anyone?), while the primary process keeps mavericks from getting the nomination of a major party.
About 18 months ago a friend suggested that, like an alcoholic, perhaps the country needed to bottom out before it would react. However, looking at Iraq, New Orleans, Abramoff, our economic and tax policies, etc., we've clearly bottomed out and yet few seem to care.
While both parties have sold their souls in return for power, those currently in charge have taken it to a new level, the K Street Project among the most glaring examples.
I wish I could end this on an optimistic note, but cannot find one for now.

[Joe Wilson]

Fred - remember, it was a vocal minority of far right activists that put the Republicans in power and "elected" Bush.

So keep right on saying what you think. You may be in the minority, but you are not alone.

[Emil Sotirov]

I agree with all points...

But we should stop refraining from posting our thoughts "as they always seem to annoy about half" our readers.

Unfortunately, I am so drained by nonstop work (trying to survive economically) that I don't have the energy to be as political (publishing my thoughts) as I would like.

That's one of the negative effects of a work focused culture. Politics are left to the "professional" politicians and profit driven media. Everybody's just "getting the job done"... but that's not enough... politics is not just another job.

[Jeremy Stein]

>>I see an activist government that is fighting a war on terrorism against an enemy we can't see and don't really understand.

this may be an incomplete though in regards to this paragraph... but don't we have to start somewhere? Someone is always going to be happy/unhappy with every conflict our country encounters. Even if the correct choice was made... whatever that may be... the problem with politics is that something always goes wrong, no matter the policy.

>>We have oil companies like Exxon reporting earnings at the rate of $40bn per year. And yet we have no real alternative energy policy in this country.

i agree an alternative energy policy in this country is necessary (i actually have a very interesting powerpoint on hydro as an alternative if you are interested in seeing it). then again... when i see people buying water out of a vending machine, which comes to $4/gallon... how can i complain about oil at $3? As an auto enthusiast it is quite painful to think about this problem.

>>We have federal budget deftcits of close to $500bn compared to a surplus at the beginning of the decade. We have rising interest rates suporting a dollar that is terribly weakened by a bankrupt fiscal policy.

its no secret that fiscal policy is slow... isn't this the point of the fed and monetary policy? what are your thoughts on that front?

[Stuart]

When people like me who are from outside the US read what people like you are saying we can see that there is still hope for your great country.

[Sean Winstead]

I've been reading your blog for a couple of months and, politically, you generally seem more to the left than I. But I wholeheartedly agree with your closing statement to get rid of who we have and find someone new.

[Peter Cochran]

Fred,
Great post. I've never been overtly political, but that won't stop me from suggesting that you seriously consider running for public office sometime in your career. A platform of foreign-policy common sense, fiscal responsibility, pro rock-n-roll, and anti comment-spam would easily win my vote.

[Richard Querin]

There are many up here in Canada who think your administration is doing the right thing in the middle east and the correct thing with its policies. I am not one of them. We have just elected a new prime minister and a new party with more right-wing views (although still signficantly left of either of your parties). We are saturated with your culture and politics on a daily basis, in many ways we are very nearly the same. However I can't help but notice how religion plays a much more significant role in your country's politics than in ours. There's lots to complain about in our country, but the separation of church and state is one thing we've managed to hold dear to this point, thankfully. I really worry about your current government and sometimes wonder how far they will actually go with their foreign and domestic policies. Your point about using 9/11 as a fear tactic is spot on. But your country is the the pillar of democracy. It is up to your citizens to determine what's best. I for one hope you can 'right the ship' before it tips much further. Very good post.

[Farid]

Fred your honesty is appreciated.

That's why I have been urging folks to vote for Nader in the past two elections. Your options should NOT be limited to Pepsi and Coke only!

Engage others. How can you call this a democracy where they don't even let Nader or anyone else debate them?

Kerry and Bush, democrats and republicans, they are actors in the all American theatre of the absurd.

Have a good night.

[John]

With regard to...

"And I wonder where we draw the line on this interventionist policy. Do we take the fight to Iran, to North Korea? Do we have to go it basically alone? Why won't the rest of the democratic world fight this war on terrorism alongside of us if it is so critical to the stability of the world? And why has our international reputation fallen so far in the past decade?"

If we were to take interventionist policy off the table the option left would be diplomacy ’as an objective’ and not as a method. By this I mean, as long as there was dialog going on we would be meeting our objective and achieving success. Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea would be building a nuclear arsenal. I am sure a lot of people believe this is inevitable and maybe believe all sovereign states have a right to develop nuclear arms. Bush and the majority of the American people would not be in this camp.

To me it’s clear that Bush has defined his presidency on these issues. I don’t see him leaving office without the Iran and North Korea issue being addressed. I see us choosing our wars one at a time. It won’t take much. One simple scenario: 1. Troop commitments to Iraq will start being reduced over the next year or so 2. another attack on the US that we are over due for, 3. Inevitable missteps on the part of the Iranian government. = regime change in Iran.

I don’t know what else is feasible other than making sure the leadership of these countries understands that it will be they and their families that will not survive once things reach the tipping point.

[Keyvan N.]

I can't quite believe how much reading your post reminded me "Fear and Loathing on the campaign trail '72" ; I guess we have little a case of history repeating...

[Dave]

Not much to disagree with here.

[Robert J. Berger]

You are not alone!

On a related note;
I was listening to Jay Rockefeller on NPR tonight after the "State of the Union" supposedly rebutting a Republican. The Republican was totally on point, simple statements (all lies, but they sounded solid and with heartfelt authority) Rockefeller was all over the place, apologizing for disagreeing, not directly or clearly stating why Bush's policies are illegal and immoral, just sounding like a wimp.

That is the Democratic party. And the Neocons are stealing the country using modern effective advertising and psychops techniques while the Democrats act like its the mid 20th century of politics as usual.

[Lance Weatherby]

You are often right. Referring to your last paragraph, this time I think you are wrong. I believe you are in the majority. For some reason it is silent.

[Rockwell]

"And I wonder where we draw the line on this interventionist policy. Do we take the fight to Iran"

If the alternative is a nuclear Iran, do you think we should not "take the fight" to Iran?

[Tanner]

Mr. Wilson-
I like your post very much about the state of the nation.

I, too, am dissatisfied with the choices we have -- between righteous Republicans and tired Democrats -- and have begun bring my message to the masses through my blog.

I, too, wrote about the State of the Union tonight and invite you and your readers to read it and to join me in a movement to fix our nation.
Tanner

[Mo]

Fred, I am perplexed by the budget deficit comment. I agree that what we have currently is really bad but I would say a surplus is bad too. Ideally a balanced budget or a very small deficit is a good way to run the government. A surplus to me means, the government is collecting more money than it knows what to do with it and the Bushes and the Clintons, the Kennedys and the Delays, the Gores and the Cheneys will just come up with new ways to spend taxpayer money. I personally would like the elected representatives to come up with innovative ways to generate more revenue for the government than just going with the default easy answer of asking the taxpayers to cough it up.

Overall, you hit the nail on the head(cliche :)) with the people always having to chose the better of two evils in this two party system. Very little good can come out of this situation.

[Steve]

Fred, it's puzzling to see you write, "A government that takes great pleasure in raising the specter of 9/11 every time someone questions the wisdom of its policies."

For one thing, I know you viscerally dislike the Bush administration, but "pleasure"? You debase your own arguments when you impugn your opponents motives in such fashion. Perhaps the Bush admin refers to 9/11 too much, but I submit no one talks about 9/11 with "pleasure." For shame on all of us if we allow political debate to become school-yard taunting.

Perhaps more important, I am disappointed by your implied notion that somehow we have put 9/11 behind us, that that event and its causes and implications should not be a continuing part of our political discourse. The world is still reverberating to the vibrations caused by the fall of the Roman Empire (Roman Catholism anyone?), the writing of the Magna Carta, the American, French and Russian revolutions, WWI and WWII, the Marshall Plan, etc. I am skeptical of anyone who does *not* constantly "raise the spectre of 9/11" when debating policy.

[Don]

Fred-

I'm a Republican, and I'm sick of the whole thing. I am so tired with both parties that I have pretty much disengaged from the political process. I feel pretty sure that this is not what the founders had in mind.

[Paul Lightfoot]

Fred, I agree that we need a new crop of leaders.

I'm tired of one party on the offense all the time with all politics and no policy (and the resulting consequences). And the other party all defense (and not even good defense).

Obama!

[Michael J.]

Excellent post, on all points. Thanks for bringing this to the attention of your audience.

[Marina Architect]

Mobilise for campaign finance reform: that's the only long term reform option.

Once you remove legislators and executive appointees who are cashing in from defense/pharma/coal/oil interests then we can legislate for healthcare/clean air/water/polluters and right start childcare for young families.

The executive branch has really stacked the deck entirely with former lobbyists: FDA and EPA have zero trust and public integrity.

Why can't we set up an online referendum that reflects public opinion. Not polls with 1,000 sampled but an independent password mailed to your physical address system that allows people to express public opinion and therefore impact legislation.

[Charlie Crystle]

You can continue to back the status quo, or you can lead the NYC Democratic fundraisers and donors to back true progressives.

Chuck Pennacchio (www.chuck2006.com) is running for US Senate against party-chosen, conservative Democrat, anti-choice, pro-war, pro-corporate Bob Casey.

Last week a Zogby poll was released that shows Casey losing to Santorum, but Chuck beating Santorum.

Chuck stands for the values you believe in. And yes, it's not New York, but EVERY SENATE SEAT AFFECTS YOU. So back what you believe in.

Oh--and Santorum and Casey have taken money from 18 of the same packs, including ones tied to Abramoff. Chuck takes no PAC money. He's the real deal--but needs your help. Back what you believe in.

This goes for conservatives too. This is not a conservative presidency, this is a neo-con presidency that cares little for the country it's using to further its un-democratic, un-American, anti-family goals. I hate to say it, but I miss true conservatives.