State of the Union, Indeed.

I found Bush's speech more interesting for what it failed to say rather than what it did say. While it's easy to speak sanguinely of benefits for the unprivileged inner-city denizens and the people who can afford health insurance from a source outside their work...what of the people who are dependent on the status quo? Without tax increases--particularly on the wealthy--things aren't looking so good for the middle classes.... Funny how America, the country famous for social mobility and a large middle class, frequently leaves it out when discussing benefits.
Also, freedom and terrorism and democracy...I've said this before, I'll say it again--democracies are only truly successful in countries with solid infrastructures and relatively stable, non-tyrannical* governments. Telling a country it has to be democratic because that's good for the world is complete bullshit. America has to stop assuming that wars can be ended with the establishment of a democracy, because democracy does not equal stability.
Overall, the State of the Union address was nothing new for Bush; I read the transcript, so I didn't see how he acted, but I'm sure it was very form-based.

*in the sense of the ancient, where a tyrant was anyone who had risen to power via some sort of coup and not by inheritance, &c.

No comments: