The state of a deeply divided union

The state of a deeply divided union
Published: January 25 2007 02:00 | Last updated: January 25 2007 02:00
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007


Give war a chance: that was the main message of George W. Bush's flat, unambitious State of the Union address on Tuesday. But critics of his plan for sending more troops to Iraq were clearly not placated by his plea for more time to make a policy that has never looked like working pay off.

Mr Bush tried all his old tricks to rally their support, suggesting that those who oppose his barely credible troop "surge" plan are merely cutting the ground from underneath the brave boys already fighting overseas. He tried to terrify the electorate with predictions of a future of more terror if the US is defeated in Iraq. He stuck in a bit of dangerous Iran-bashing - insisting that Tehran is breeding the next al-Qaeda - to justify an Iraq plan that most Americans flatly oppose.

The lukewarm reaction from both sides made clear that it is simply too late for real bipartisanship on this issue: Mr Bush squandered his last chance to unify the nation behind a solution for Iraq when he brushed aside the Baker-Hamilton report. Unless Congress can summon the courage and resolve to cut off funds for the surge plan (which seems highly unlikely, however many angry non-binding resolutions it passes), Mr Bush will probably do what he has always done in the war on terror: go his own way, and damn the opposition.

But Iraq was not the only focus of Tuesday's speech: Mr Bush also tried to distract the nation from talk of war.

Struggling to sound relevant in a world where Democrats hold a majority in Congress, Mr Bush tried to capture the national imagination with domestic initiatives that included reducing petrol consumption and extending healthcare to more uninsured Americans.

But it was a meagre menu, short on substantive new ideas and especially bereft of proposals that have any chance of surviving in the newly Democratic Congress.

Mr Bush called for a 20 per cent cut in petrol use over 10 years, and a huge increase in alternative fuels. But US presidents have been vowing to achieve energy independence since Richard Nixon in the 1970s, and the plan faces many obstacles. It is hard to believe that this politically hamstrung president can make energy his legacy.

His proposal to use taxes to subsidise healthcare for the uninsured is more interesting - but hardly more politically viable. Leading Democrats trashed the plan even before he announced it: many of them are jealously guarding the issue to form the main plank of their presidential campaign in 2008.

That, perhaps, was the real (if unspoken) message of Tuesday's speech. On domestic policy, there is just so much a lame-duck president facing a hostile Congress can do - which may only tempt this particular president to flex his muscles further on foreign policy. And that may not be good news for America - or for anyone else.