New School Politics

State of the Union-Conservative Response

Eftychis | 23 01 2007

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

The State of the Union tonight was different than many expected. The first part focused on domestic policy was predicted during the talk shows on twenty-four hour news networks prior to Bush’s speech. I was pleased with a number of points that Bush made but was also disappointed with others. I was impressed with the president’s attempt at bipartisanship. Whether Republicans like it or not, Bush is in danger of being a lame duck (assuming he is already not one). My colleague Zach Sims noted that Bush wore a blue tie (perhaps signaling an attempt at partisanship); he also reiterated, “we must work together” on multiple topics.

It is imparative that Bush does work with the democratic controlled house and senate; I believe that Bush will be able to work with his democratic colleagues on multiple issues, including healthcare and energy. On MSNBC’s State of the Union coverage Chris Mathews and Keith Oberman disclosed an informal response from Barack Obama that expressed hope at working with his Republican counterparts to finding a solid energy policy and solving the healthcare crisis.

The goal to decrease America’s gasoline consumption by twenty percent over the next decade is an excellent first step to decreasing our nations demand on foreign oil. At the same time we should be looking into many other technologies including nuclear alternatives to our traditional petroleum driven infrastructure. If the French can get sixty percent of their power from nuclear plants, why can’t we? Bush’s energy policy is sound and his acknowledgment of “global climate change” is a good first step towards combating global warming. I believe that America as a whole is now willing to fight global warming and that most American’s are believers in its effects, Bush has realized that he can only gain political ground by putting forth a policy that pleases the majority of the nation.

I am glad to see that the administration highlighted the problems with the American healthcare system and the HMOs and while I hope that it will remain private, the HMOs are as bad as any socialized medical program.

Bush is working towards a comprehensive plan for immigration, which is better than anything offered in the past, however there is one problem with a guest worker program. The American melting pot has defined this country and is what makes it so unique, but a guest worker program jeopardizes this basic fundamental of the American character. If people come to America, work for five years, and then leave they are not adding any real value to the economy, nor towards the culture and society. Also many of these people wish to work in America and then live in America, bringing their families into the United States to seek better opportunities. Like other immigrants before them, Latin Americans are hard workers with strong Catholic values that encourage healthy family bonds a good work ethic. They are the types of people that Americans want at their side and if we kick them out after working here we will be keeping them from integrating into our society, only inflaming the immigration crisis and increasing the cultural divide. Yes boarder security needs to be tightened, but those who wish to come live and work honestly in America should be welcomed with open arms and be eligible for their citizenship.

I was disappointed at the president’s new policy towards Africa. It may have been an attempt to reach out to the European’s, however giving aid to Africa is neither the responsibility of the United States government, nor should it dictate how taxpayer dollars are spent there. Organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation (which has assets in the tens of billions) are able to demolish epidemics all over the world and they are more efficient than any government agency. Not only does private enterprise have better results, spur creative thinking, and avoid government corruption, it is often able to raise greater capital. In a time when the United States has a half a trillion-dollar deficit, the government should not be spending over one billion dollars to combat disease on another continent. Instead that billion dollars should be used for alternative energy research in the United States, providing up to date text books for American students, dealing with the crimes caused by Katrina evacuees, or perhaps increasing oil output from Iraq.

Iraq and the Middle East present the biggest challenges for the president. Bush called for a two state solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, support for the troop increase in Baghdad, and further condemnation of Iran. I disagree with almost all of the President’s Middle East policy. Iran and Syria do represent threats, but neither country has attacked the United States in thirty years nor has declared war on any western country. Negotiating with Iran not only shows a position of strength for America, it will also enable the US to set the agenda instead of leaving it to the Russians or the Europeans. Opening Iran up to American trade and investment will do more to stop terrorism and radicalism than any amount of bombs, a Starbucks on every corner of Tehran will do more to destroy radical Islamic terrorism than a soldier on each corner. At the same time both Iran and Syria must be convinced (through economic incentives such as trade) to stop their support of Hezbollah.

The US and Israel should also exponentially increase their aid to the Lebanese government to insure it is capable of securing its own boarders from Syria. In addition, diplomacy with Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to stop any unofficial funding of Sunni terrorism in Iraq is fundamental to ending the violence. The only way there will ever be peace in Palestine is if the Palestinians have a state, in a Discovery Times Documentary, Columnist Thomas Friedman discovered that over twenty percent of Palestinians would endorse a single state solution. This is an astounding number considering not one political or militant party in neither Israel nor Palestine has called for a single state solution. A single state solution is the only way to end the boarder conflicts between the two countries and also will give the Palestinians a passport that they so desperately want.

Bush made important points about the state of the world and the state of the country. I hope that he reaches out to his democratic opponents and encourages his Republican constituents to do the same; otherwise the next two years will be less fruitful than the last. Some of his initiatives have promise, but all of them will depend on the willingness of others to succeed. The Congress and Senate will have to work together to ensure that tonight’s speech was not given in vain.