A night on which everything that makes post-America "post" was on display

 I didn't watch the SOTU speech, but I've read a pretty comprehensive array of takes. It appears to have been "fiery" (a word that has shown up in several headlines), with some left-of-center partisans saying it dispels any notions that Biden is senile. 

From the LITD perspective (again, on what I've gleaned of the content by reading about it), it seems to have been a mixed bag.

He is - and perhaps the stopped-clock-being-right-twice-a-day framing has some applicability here - spot on about the stakes in Ukraine. In fact, his choosing the opportunity afforded by that topic to point out the quashing of a painstakingly hammered out bipartisan bill that would have provided Ukraine aid and Israel aid and Taiwan aid and border resources, with cameras panning to Senator Lankford - he whose noble efforts in crafting it fell short - was a moment of moral clarity.

But his picking on Israel and this business about a port for aid to get into Gaza - aid that will be surely be pilfered by the enemy Israel must obliterate - was definitely not such a moment.

He unsurprisingly displayed the ignorance of basic economics common to pretty much everyone left of center by saying corporations and "the rich" needs be taxed more.

And of course, in driving home his theme of freedom, he had to include this "right" he sees for people to exterminate fetal Americans. 

I have no problem with his going after Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. The Very Stable Genius and the party he now completely dominates are at least as spiritually rotten as the Democrats, so it stand to reason that Biden is going to point out that rottenness.

The general consensus, even among Republicans, is that Katie Britt's Republican response was just plain goofy. As observers are saying, it's ripe for a parody skit on Saturday Night Live.

Then there was the array of costumes, buttons and all such regalia that yay-hoos of various stripes decided to come attired in. Hecklers. Walkers-out. Marjorie Taylor-Greene. 

And note must be taken of the re-routing of the motorcade from a straight shot up Pennsylvania Avenue because pro-jihad protestors felt self-righteous preening was a higher priority than public order.

A little something for everybody on a March Thursday night as we stare over the precipice into the abyss where the echoes of Western civilization's architects fade into silence.

A subject about which no one will speak plainly

 First, some thoughts on the State of the Union address more broadly.

I didn't watch it, and all reportage I've come across about it today confirms my decision.

It also confirms the likelihood that I'll once again sit out the election next year. The essence of each of the major US political parties in their present forms was brought into sharp relief: The Democrats remain the party of wealth redistribution, climate alarmism, and identity politics militancy. The Republicans are a collection of cowards, sycophants, nuts and out-and-out zoo animals. 

But I want to discuss a Washington Examiner piece by Tiana Lowe that deserves wide readership. It's short, and it's some bracing straight talk about that perennial third rail: Social Security.

She starts by recounting what President Biden had to say about it last night:

"So tonight, let’s all agree to stand up for seniors," Biden said. "Stand up and show them we will not cut Social Security. We will not cut Medicare. Those benefits belong to the American people. They earned them. If anyone tries to cut Social Security, I will stop them. And if anyone tries to cut Medicare, I will stop them."

Lowe point out that this is a lot of sound and fury over something that ain't even happening:

But not only is Biden arguing against a straw man here — sadly, no sitting Republicans actually are pledging to cut entitlements — but he is also forgetting that doing nothing is tantamount to a massive cut of Social Security benefits!

Why is that the case?

Absent a major reform from Social Security, the program will become insolvent in a little more than a decade. Upon insolvency, benefits will be slashed by 20% to 25% across the board.

Okay, nobody is talking about cutting benefits or structurally reforming the program. Well, where do we look next to face our country's debt-and-deficit precipice?

If Republicans wish to balance the budget within the decade without touching entitlements or defense spending, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects Congress would need to slash 85% of the rest of the budget.

Could tax hikes fill in the void of the Social Security Trust Fund once insolvency hits? Maybe — if Democrats and Republicans were comfortable with jacking up the payroll tax by 25%.

This is what happens when enough people adopt the mindset that government ought to be about the task of ensuring that people can age gracefully.  

 

 

 

SOTU thoughts

It was impressive by a couple of different standards. One, by comparison to the way Trump behaves when addressing his base exclusively, such as at his rallies. Two, by comparison to previous SOTU speeches from either party. Sure, like all SOTUs, it had its laundry-list-of-grand-vision policy initiatives that Congress will assuredly not make its priorities (the flag on Mars thing being a good example), but the moments informed by actual conservatism were ringing assertions of it.

There was some back-and-forth childishness. Donald Trump should have shaken Pelosi's hand. It's an interesting question to consider whether or not that would have affected her decisions to not include the "high privilege and distinct honor" portion of the customary introduction or to tear up her copy of his speech right behind his back as he bid those assembled good night. They're not buddies -  although the fact that the Very Stable Genius once had high regard for her, telling CNN in 2008 that he found her "very impressive" and saying he "like[d] her a lot" - and thought she should have impeached Bush!  - is emblematic of his erratic nature.

There was some audience childishness as well. The Republican "four more years!" chants did nothing to impart dignity to the proceedings. (But let's get real; this speech was most definitely crafted as a campaign salvo.) But the Women in White really need to give up their schtick. Women got the right to vote 100 years ago. There's no point to this stunt now (although I'm sure any one of them would give me an earful about why there is.) And the staged walkouts were grandstanding of the first order.

You know who served as a highly visible foil to the displays of polarization? A Democrat. Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema.  Now, that was impressive!

The speech had its moments of real conservatism:

• "We will never let socialism destroy American health care."
• support for choice in education
• We've "rejected the downsizing of America's destiny"
• "In America, we don't punish prayer. . . [or] muzzle our preachers and pastors"

This year's calling out of audience notables was outstanding.

100-year-old Tuskeegee Airman Charles McGee and his great-grandson, who aspires to be a Space Force cadet, gave us all a look at true American greatness. Ellie Schneider, the girl who had been one of the youngest fetuses ever to be delivered, effectively sent the message that everyone's life is sacred. Janiyah Davis, the Philadelphia girl who was awarded the opportunity scholarship right there on the spot drove home the point about educational choice. Sgt. Townsend Williams' surprise reunion with his family was a great touch.

The shoutout to Juan Guaido sent an unmistakable message to the world's socialist tyrants that the United States, at least at this time, will not appease them.

And then there was the conferring of the Congressional Medal of Freedom on Rush. Man, he's looking frail. Pugnacious optimist that he is, he's been sounding the right notes publicly since he announced his condition, but he's clearly quite sick.

I confess that, along with the nod to Mr. McGee, this one caused me to tear up a bit. As I said the other day in my Precipice piece about Rush's announcement, I'm not going to let his unfortunate Trumpist turn over the last five years unduly color my assessment of the overall arc of his career and contribution. His pioneering work as a conservative radio personality was essential to the growth of the conservative movement. He thrilled us with his courageous plain speaking. He made a lot of us who had been reading National Review in the privacy of our homes realize that we could forthrightly say this stuff in public. Rush Limbaugh is indeed a great American.

There was a fair amount of decidedly un-conservative content in the speech. There was no mention of the debt or deficit, but there sure was a resolute assurance that Trump deems Social Security and Medicare are untouchable on his watch - even as it's plain as day that those programs' unfunded liabilities are the cause of our grim fiscal outlook. His daughter has plainly gotten to him regarding this paid-family-leave business.

There was, of course, lots of braggadocio and comparison to previous administrations, particularly to that of his immediate predecessor, the Most Equal Comrade. It got more confrontational than was necessary, it seems to me. But some of it is clearly backed up by facts, such as the net worth of the bottom half of wage earners increasing by 47 percent, and minority unemployment at an all-time low.

I've said before that there's kind of a cyclical pattern to the Very Stable Genius's behavior. He'll make some great move, often a good speech like this, followed by two or three particularly egregious examples of his boneheadedness that sully the good move's effect. We actually got a bit of a taste of that a few hours before the speech, when he was in full swagger-and-bluster mode at the luncheon he hosted for an assemblage of TV news anchors.  It won't be long before he pulls another stunt like disregarding his own assertions about proper behavior during the national anthem at the Super Bowl party he hosted at Mar-a-Lago.  Count on it.

No mention of impeachment. Why would there be? That whole push is going to fizzle out, probably today.

The evening clarified a lot of things, most prominently the ever-deepening polarization in post-America. The above-mentioned Senator Sinema demonstrated a possible way to ameliorate that, but I doubt if it will be heeded. There are, as there have been for three-plus years now, three main forces in our nation's political life: progressivism, conservatism and Trumpism. At least we know the lay of the land as we venture out into that jungle that is 2020.

The SOTU post

Stylistically, it was an interesting mix of quintessential VSG means of expression (on Iran: "They do bad, bad things") and actual soaring rhetoric that was obviously written by someone else ("I am asking you to choose greatness"). One line toward the end was a mixture of both that was effectively inspirational ("We do the incredible. We defy the impossible. We conquer the unknown").

What's not to love about the thunderous bellow "America will never be a socialist country!", especially as the camera panned to Bernie Sanders, whose face looked like it might explode?

There were plenty of VSG-esque ad libs, some pretty gratuitous, such as saying "You weren't supposed to do that" after Dem women cheered about how most of the recent jobs gains have been experienced by women. It was kind of funny the way he followed that up with "Don't sit yet! You're going to like this!" as the way to announce that more women than ever are serving in Congress.

Plenty for conservatives to be pleased with. The way he made sure to characterize pulling out of the JCPOA as a very good thing. The portion dealing with unborn Americans - which caused a temperature drop among those Dem women who had just leapt up in exaltation over the economic and political gains he'd mentioned.

It wasn't all conservatism, though. There was a hefty dose of populism as well, mainly manifesting itself in the portion juxtaposing "global elites" and the working class. The faint hint of protectionism was wafting off that one.

The attempt at a comity-and-reset tone will probably, sooner rather than later, be seen as not so successful. After all, at a luncheon earlier in the day, he'd referred to Chuck Schumer as "a nasty son of a bitch." Schumer had a few divisive words of his own just before the speech.

Stacy Abrams' Dem response started out fine. I went several minutes nodding my head, saying, "Sounds like a vision I can share." But then she started in with all that identity-politics, gun control and climate change crud and I was shaking my head instead of nodding it.

DNC Tom Perez was his usual venomous self, diving right into crud about "vague platitudes . . .punctuated by lies, fear mongering and empty promises." He reminded us that his own chops as a liar are in good working order with that dog vomit about people getting their health care taken away.

And I've really had it up to here with this Ocasio-Cortez creature and her virtue signaling. Stand up with your colleagues, you self-congratulatory little dimwit.

I think this year's SOTU will be seen as a clarifying moment. These people stand for this, and these other people stand for that, and however we proceed, it's from that basis.

But the VSG mostly behaved himself, which he does when he knows the moment calls for a really good speech.

The obligatory SOTU post

For starters, I didn't watch it.

My band had a rehearsal for an upcoming gig, and we needed to nail down our set list. (Which we did. We're going to tear the place up.)

After perusing numerous takes, my sense is that Red State's Joe Cunningham's two-speeches formulation is about right:

Did you catch it? Did you watch or listen as President Donald Trump gave two speeches before Congress?

The first part of the speech was the positives. Essentially, “This is what we have done!” It was a roll call of the GOP’s accomplishments during Trump’s first year – including tax reform, getting rid of the individual mandate, and others. He referenced the hurricane-ravaged parts of the U.S. and Puerto Rico and mentioned both professional and civilian efforts to help affected citizens.

In this part of the speech, he was speaking to all Americans. “This is what I did for you,” he told us. “This is what I got accomplished.”

It was also a nod to his early talk of working with Democrats and negotiating. He mentioned several things Democrats want – paid family leave, more infrastructure spending, etc. – and it was meant to show the American public that Trump does have a heart and care about them.

Then, things changed a bit. If you were watching ABC, you saw the list of topics in the speech as Trump went through them. The first part of Trump’s speech ended on the topic of child care. The second part began with immigration.

It was clear what had happened. That was the part of the speech that Stephen Miller took over in writing.

The more hawkish side of the speech focused on the issues that got Trump elected, and how he intended to keep those promises. He received some “Boos” from the crowd, but he wasn’t speaking to Congress at that point. He was speaking to the base that elected him.

That much narrower audience came at a price. The wide audience is not necessarily into Trump’s promises on immigration reform (as they perceive it). They don’t necessarily want to hear more talk of war and the military. They want to see how Trump will heal America. And that is ultimately something that Trump didn’t quite address in the speech. 

I checked my Twitter feed when I got home from practice to get a sense of the immediate-aftermath  round of takes. Someone - I think maybe John Podhoretz - said that the emphasis on the hard-core criminal element in the illegal-alien population came across as a little gratuitous. Jose Miguel Cruz, director of research at the Kimberly Green Latin American and Caribbean Center at Florida International University says at the Washington Post that the MS-13 presence in the US is statistically dwarfed by homegrown gangs like the Crips and Bloods. Then again, that's small comfort to people like Elizabeth Alvardo, Robert Mickens, Evelyn Rodriguez and Freddy Cuevas, parents of folks murdered by MS-13 monsters. 

The irony of Dems refusing to applaud for the great economic stats, including record-low minority unemployment, was striking, to say the least.

A word about how members of the Freedom-Hater Party dealt with the whole thing: Federal legislators often don't show up for the State of the Union. Is there ever 100 percent attendance? But they just don't show up. They don't use it as an opportunity to grandstand. Why did Maxine Waters have to get in front of a microphone to tell us what her plans weren't for the evening? And, yes, Luis Gutierrez's office has said he had to duck out for a meeting, but, given the identity-politics poison that regularly comes out of his mouth, including after the speech, are you buying it?

And several commentators have noted the choice of Joe Kennedy III to handle the official Dem response to the SOTU. I think Jim Geraghty at NRO has the most important perspective for us to take into consideration:

There’s a wide chasm between how Democrats perceive the Kennedys and the actual truth, and it’s not petty to keep pointing out that gap. There’s a stack of evidence showing that a lot of the Kennedys were horrible, selfish, abusive people who were somehow stage-managed and airbrushed into secular saints. The list of scandals runs generations, from lobotomizing Rosemary Kennedy, to JFK making Jackie get electroshock treatments, to the multiple allegations against William Kennedy Smith, to Patrick Kennedy driving under the influence. And of course, Chappaquiddick.

By Kennedy standards, Congressman Joe Kennedy III is an accomplished 37-year-old: Stanford and Harvard Law, two years in the Peace Corps, several years as an assistant district attorney. Defying his family stereotype, he doesn’t drink. But let’s not kid ourselves; if his name were Joe Smith and his family wasn’t an icon in American politics, he would have had a much tougher time winning a Democratic Congressional primary in Massachusetts at age 32.

That’s why there’s a good reason to cringe when Joe Kennedy III, grandson of Bobby Kennedy and great-nephew of John F. Kennedy and Ted Kennedy, stands before the nation giving the Democratic response to the State of the Union address and laments “a system forcefully rigged towards those at the top.” 

I've seen several takes on it that concluded with what we must all acknowledge: Trump will ruin the positive effect his speech had on how the public perceives him by indulging in petty, childish tweets about some perceived slight.

Which gets us to Ben Shapiro's excellent latest Townhall column, "Can A Flawed Man Be a Good President?" 

Shapiro makes the point that we recognize the contributions of great artists and athletes even as we take into account their egregious shortcomings as human beings. (I used to be bemused by a glaring incongruity I saw at a jazz-improvisation workshop I attended several years ago. Faculty used to pepper their instruction about scales and harmony with admonishments for us to stay away from dope and reckless living, even as they raved about particular Charlie Parker or Miles Davis solos.)

Can a bad man make a good president? The answer, obviously, should be yes.

What's more, the answer should have been obvious: Machiavelli suggested back in the 16th century that perhaps only a bad man can be a good politician. Machiavelli stated that virtue is an unrealistic and counterproductive standard for a statesman -- what is needed is virtu, a capacity to use virtue and vice for the achievement of a specific end. Even Aristotle, a devotee of virtue, suggested that good citizens need not be good men.

All of which makes sense. Bad men make great artists. Bad men make great athletes. Saints often die in penury; sinners often die in riches.

But the jury is still out on which is going to weigh more heavily in history's reckoning - Trump's accomplishments or, well, you know, his basic nature:

Trump's list of accomplishments is only half the story. That's because the office of the presidency is about more than mere accomplishments: It's about modeling particular behavior. Bill Clinton was a successful president, but he was not a good one: He drove the country apart, degraded our political discourse and brought dishonor to the White House. The same was true for President Richard Nixon. Doing good things as president does not mean being a good president. Being a good president requires a certain element of character.

And Trump's character is still lacking. Perhaps in the end, conservatives should ignore Trump's character defects and take the wins; I certainly cheer those wins. Perhaps in the end, Trump's character will poison the wins themselves; we won't know that for years. We do know, however, that if we believe the president has two roles -- one as a policymaker, the other as a moral model -- then President Trump can only be half-successful so long as he refuses to change himself.

Just came across this tweet from the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein that reminds us that, good bad or in-between, this speech was not the pronouncement of a conservative:

Trump SOTU: --Throws in towel on Obamacare repeal -- Wants to spend $1.5 trillion on infrastructure -- Paid family leave -- No entitlement reform

 Bottom line: State of the Union addresses can provide short-term national adrenaline rushes, but within a matter of days, we'll be talking about other stuff entirely.