Return to: Home | World Affairs

Goodnight, Mr President

Andrew Stephen

Published 29 January 2008

Bush's final State of the Union address was a sad affair starring the most disastrous US president in modern history, writes Andrew Stephen. Plus read a history of this American occasion

It had been one of the most enthralling days in American politics for years. In the morning, that veteran old Democratic trouper Senator Ted Kennedy enraged Bill and Hillary Clinton by reneging on a previous private agreement - and in front of a wildly jubilant audience of supporters of Senator Barack Obama at the American University in Washington, 75-year-old Kennedy bestowed the blessing of the Camelot clan on Obama, Hillary’s main rival for this year’s Democratic presidential nomination. In the afternoon, nine hundred miles south in Florida, the fight between the Republican frontrunners got even more down and dirty.

In the evening, though, we came back to reality with a thud. The forgotten man of American politics, the nation’s 43rd president, delivered his final State of the Union Address. They are always ludicrous rituals: even the most unpopular president is greeted with wild rapture by politicians of both parties, and for a brief 90 minutes or so is supposed to be able to able to bathe in the bipartisan adulation of a united nation.

But George W Bush’s last scheduled appearance before congress on Monday evening was the most muted, even melancholy, State of the Union Address I can recall. That triumphalist grin of old had morphed into a subdued and even wistful smile, as though it has finally dawned on Bush that his popularity ratings - which stood at 84 per cent after the 9/11 atrocities - are spiralling inexorably downwards, even into the twenties in some polls.

The eerie presence behind him of a once ubiquitous figure who has now almost totally disappeared from the nation’s political radar screens, vice president Dick Cheney, only added to the surrealism of the sad charade.

There was far more interest in Obama - sitting in the audience next to his new mentor, Kennedy - and in Hillary, defiant in resplendent red. But I glanced up at my Bush Countdown Clock the moment Bush started speaking, and it indicated a brutal reality: there were still 357 days, two hours, 50 minutes and 8.2 seconds to go before Hillary, Obama or one of their Republican rivals moves into the White House to replace the most disastrous US president in modern history.

Even Bush’s best speech writers have now deserted him, and that showed in the 59 minutes he was at the rostrum. The grand, sweeping assertions of how a Bush-led America would transform the world, bringing it democracy and everything else that was both good and American, had gone - replaced by far more feeble, forgettable lines like “we are spreading the hope of freedom”.

There were not even any of the traditional surprise guests - Hamid Karzai popped up in 2002 and four years later the American hero produced was Rex, a bomb-sniffing US army Alsatian dog injured in Iraq - and if any of this year’s Republican aspirants for the presidential nomination were hoping Bush’s final address might offer them some morale-boosting crumbs, they must have been sorely disappointed.

There were the predictable, constant interruptions of applause - but even they were more muted than usual. Bush seemed on auto-pilot as he read from his Teleprompter of how the “surge” in Iraq was working and “our enemies in Iraq have been hit hard.”

The spectre of al Qaeda, the invisible yet ever-present enemy constantly invoked by Bush and Cheney since 9/11, was predictably used yet again: “My fellow Americans, we will not rest until this enemy has been defeated.” Cue, of course, applause. “In the past six years, we've stopped numerous attacks,” he went on, “including a plot to ... blow up passenger jets bound for America over the Atlantic.” That, I suspect, is a claim that will enrage certain people in MI5 headquarters in London.

Then there were the kind of ritualistic lines that Americans love but the rest of the world loathes - “the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people” - and meaningless ones like “America opposes genocide in Sudan.” Meaning, I presume, that the rest of us lack this profound American insight and just love that genocide?

By the end of what seemed to be an ordeal for Bush, you began to feel almost sorry for America’s 43rd president. He seemed to have little awareness of just how serious the economic recession America now faces really is - throwing out “challenges” to the Democratic congress to act as though he, the mighty US president, is powerless to do so himself.

“The actions of the 110th Congress will affect the security and prosperity of our nation long after this session has ended,” he proclaimed, as though the actions of the 43rd presidency won’t matter a whit.

Sadly, though, they will. Embattled as he now is in his bunker and with fewer and fewer allies remaining to sustain his morale, even Bush himself now seems to have virtually given up hope for his own presidency. I suspect that he has now reached the stage where he, just as much as the rest of us, can’t wait for those 357 days to pass and for the 44th president to move into the White House and take charge. Goodnight, Mr President.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

17 comments from readers

Pat T
29 January 2008 at 14:38

No, not meaning that the rest of the world loves genocide - just reminding you that we're the ones who had to come in and end the genocide committed by communism and fascism.

Honestly you America- haters really sound like spoiled brats - you're like the ungrateful kid brother - you just resent us for having had to bail you out in WWI, WWII and the Cold War.

Robert Powell
29 January 2008 at 16:41

Yes that really works doesn't it. Cow Patt accusing the Brits of being spoilt brats. Do you have no self-awareness at all? Silly boy - or girl as the case may be.

Nathan Stewart
29 January 2008 at 17:36

Ha ha, I didn't think that sort of thing went on on the mesasge boards of NewStatesman.com

issak
29 January 2008 at 19:21

Well , there goes another american who thinks the are the "saviours" of the modern world. As cruel and uncaring it might sound , sometimes i wished if i can go back in time precisely during the second world war so a different world power which is more caring to the residents of this planet might emerge and save this world from this tumour called "AMERICA".Im not trying to sound odd but they are like so ignorant about the world polictics , i cannot help but wonder 'how'?. But i think of it again , i feel so happy about the fact that they are new players and leaders emerging. The world gets the last laugh america and it might be sooner than we all might think.

frenchie
30 January 2008 at 01:26

pat t you need to learn some history. when britain needed rescuing in 1939-41 and during the battle of britain when 60,000 were killed in the bombing of london, the brits were left on their own to repel the nazis - and winning. you lot were too busy at home eating popcorn and getting fat til you realised you might be in danger from the nazis too and that what got you off your fat backsides. learn some history pat t thats my advice.

CarylRz
30 January 2008 at 02:19

Wow, you guys are really angry. Stop wasting an opportunity to educate Americans.

nawawimohamad
30 January 2008 at 07:20

Whatever Bush has done he is actually accomplishing his mission set by the campaign contributors, lobbyist, policy makers and other influential parties, but definitely none of what the American voters or the rest of the world want! It is all politics. It will be the same thing for the next president.

Cybertiger
30 January 2008 at 07:40

@issak

"... save this world from this tumour called "AMERICA"."

I believe that Americans represent a cancer that has metastazized to the global brain. Sadly, the world has now entered the terminal phase of illness.

cpark3r
30 January 2008 at 17:10

@Pat

I think comments about U.S. assistance to the Allies during WWII are tired, meaningless, and inaccurate.

It seems like you are forgetting that we were part of an alliance that defeated a common enemy and it plays down the parts played by the other countries. Its insulting.

I find such comments an embarrasement. I wish people would stop making them.

cpark3r
30 January 2008 at 17:26

@issak

The world doesn't need to be saved from the U.S. As you point out we are quickly aproaching a time when the tools that have enabled the U.S. to shove its policies down the throats of other countries are useless and the ability of the U.S. government to fund its advetureism has evaporated.

Cybertiger
30 January 2008 at 18:42

"the ability of the U.S. government to fund its advetureism has evaporated."

Hold your cotton-pickin horses, I would not be so sure, cpark3r.

"With 11 executions spread over 27 years, on a per-execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars for each life taken at state hands."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/latimesarticle.pdf

The US is rich indeed, that Americans can afford killing on this crazy scale. The world certainly does need to be saved from the fiscal ravages of the US.

cpark3r
30 January 2008 at 19:51

@cybertiger

I was talking more to the global mis-adventures. I'm sure the domestic activities will go on as usual.

I think the point of the article you mention is to show that out of the huge number of individuals on death row very few are actually put to death. The $2.75B is for the imprisionment of all the inmates - of which there are many - over 27 years. That sum divided by the 11 that were murdered by California doesn't really yield the cost per execution so to speak. However, it does show the absurdity of the death penalty itself.

stranger
30 January 2008 at 21:11

Pat T

Yup, the UK will never forget the support that we got until America was forced to choose the winning side. They remember old Joe Kennendy, the Ambassador in London desperate to get out ASAP, the Ford company refusing to sell to the UK, the list goes on and on. If Americans think they understand irony, look at the post war U.S. War Department appraisals of Nazi equipment (available at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ahec/MHI.htm) and note the name of the engines in the trucks that powered the Reich, names such as General Motors. Have no fear, the Nazi profits went back to the US post war, America (or at least the rich white ones) had a good war !

frenchie
30 January 2008 at 22:12

for your information carylrz im a canadian not a brit so am nearer the bigot border than them. yep, joe kennedy just loved hitler and if you read his dispatches to the us state department really wanted the us to side with germany rather than britain. the canadians among others were there to help the brits out when they needed help but not the americans.

cpark3r
30 January 2008 at 23:11

@stranger, Fenchie

What you say is true there was a great deal of wavering in the U.S. pre December 1941. In fact I was surprised to learn that there was huge Nazi rally at Madison Square Gardens in the summer of 1941. Such was the atmosphere at the time. It took the bombing of Pearl Habor to at least get the U.S. aligned with the right side. We saw the same thing in WWI.

However I would say that while the circumstances surrounding the U.S. entry into WWII are questionable, I would not go as far as to say we were forced to join the winning side. Remember in 1941 Japan and Germany were winning despite Britan having fended off the Reich for 2 years prior. Also while there may have been talk in some circles about siding with the Axis in the early years of the War, I certainly would not go so far as to say that there was any serious consideration - particularly as the war progressed and the nature of those regimes was exposed.

I do think the reluctance of the U.S. to enter into WWI and WWII does make a good point of why the U.S. is ill suited to its current position in world politics. These two wars would seem to be the clearest examples where choosing the correct foreign policy should have been obvious - particularly WWII. The reasons are complex but the evidence is clear. The U.S. is not the right country to run the world. Though I would argue neither is any other country.

blondcat
11 February 2008 at 11:48

And now a point of view from Belgium. The comments of Pat T whatever are indeed somewhat smug and arrogant. Nevertheless, the comments of Commie Frenchie and Co are even worse. We do owe a lot to America. The fact of the matter is, we Europeans are tired of war, we lost London, Dresden, we have had to deal with the holocaust, … The only thing we have left now, ideologically, is a defeatist pacifist attitude that is now leading to a major influx of medieval Islam into our countries.

We do have to thank Nixon, Kissinger and Reagan for ending the Cold War. Unfortunately, we’ve been spoon-fed an awfully biased leftist European media – revisionist on matters such as communism, portraying it as not that bad and bent on bashing America and blaming it for everything that’s going wrong here because of our laziness and complacency.

TheElitesWin
27 February 2008 at 07:07

@blondcat

Yes blondcat, America did help us eventually in the war, but you forget 1 thing! when America release its financial control to the federal reserve bank in 1913, the American people were unwittingly unaware that this financial establishment were the ones financially backing for the nazi's at the time. So if it wasn't for the American financial institutions, the war would not have gone on so long. LET'S CALL IS QUITS.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Andrew Stephen

Andrew Stephen was appointed US Editor of the New Statesman in 2001, having been its Washington correspondent and weekly columnist since 1998. He is a regular contributor to BBC news programs and to The Sunday Times Magazine. He has also written for a variety of US newspapers including The New York Times Op-Ed pages. He came to the US in 1989 to be Washington Bureau Chief of The Observer and in 1992 was made Foreign Correspondent of the Year by the American Overseas Press Club for his coverage.

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker