A year ago, George W. Bush delivered a State of the Union address that was sweeping in its ambitions. At its core was a proposal to overhaul the American system of pension provision. Mr Bush’s confidence then was legitimate. He had won a narrow but decisive re-election victory, his Republican Party had strengthened its hold on Congress and the Democrats were in disarray.
The months that followed were not kind to the White House. Mr Bush’s plans for pensions, although broadly wise, failed to inspire Americans and were demonised by his opponents. His wider domestic agenda for his second term has not really taken off. Difficulties in Iraq also drained support from the President. What was perceived as an inept response to Hurricane Katrina damaged Mr Bush’s reputation for running a competent administration. And scandal, the curse of virtually all re-elected presidents, has hurt him as well, with the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the Chief of Staff to the Vice-President, and other embarrassments for Republicans in Congress.
The State of the Union address that Mr Bush will offer tomorrow is, therefore, likely to be a circumspect affair. He may speak in general terms about reforming the bloated US tax code but he is unlikely to risk pressing for sweeping changes that he knows Congress will be disinclined to embrace. He should take the opportunity to press for a far more ambitious policy on energy and environmental security by proposing to reduce dramatically the country’s reliance on fossil fuels.
From this it might be assumed that Mr Bush is already sprouting the feathers that make for lame-duck status. That would be too sweeping a conclusion. Second terms are normally more awkward for a president than the initial term of office. Power seeps away. There is not much that Mr Bush can do about that. He is, nonetheless, in a better condition than he seemed two or three months ago. His approval ratings had been heading towards 35 per cent and certain commentators intoned that they could only fall lower. In fact, Mr Bush has staged a modest recovery. He has been assisted by a robust economy, some signs of political progress in Iraq and, ironically, the revelation that he had approved tapping the telephones of people resident in the United States who were suspected of links with al-Qaeda. Most citizens have treated this not as a threat to their civil liberties but as a reasonable precaution.
The Democrats may, thus, not reap the electoral rewards that they hope for in November. If that occurs, they will have themselves to blame, as Mr Bush has been partly rescued by his rivals. The Democrats have assailed the size of the budget deficit, yet not set out any detailed alternative package. They have attacked the conduct of military operations in Iraq, but have no coherent alternative strategy. Some will vote against Samuel Alito, Mr Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, but appear partisan in motive. The State of the Union speech is normally a reflection on the state of the president. This time, it is also about the state of his opponents.