Foreign Policy in the State of the Union, 2007

I noticed some interesting trends in last week’s State of the Union address in regards to U.S. foreign policy. First of all, the bipartisan language that President Bush used (and the speech did feature many references to cross-aisle cooperation) was concentrated in his domestic policy issues, including education, health care and the economy. It seems that a message was sent: the President and Executive Branch exercise supremacy in foreign policy. Further addressing the unpopular change in Iraq policy, which includes an increase in troop levels, President Bush said,

"Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq- and I ask to give it a chance to work and for you to support our troops in the field- and those on their way."

Such speech writing signals combined with the somber and ominous tone of the speech is quite different from State of the Union addresses in the past. President Bush relished audience responses to carefully crafted rhetorical gold in his speeches directly following 9/11. However, since the unpopularity of the Iraq occupation, Bush has not been able to engage his audience in a similar fashion.

The shift of focus to Iraq and the Middle East was prominent in his speech. Foreign relations with major powers such as China, Russia and Japan were breezed over. A few words on the North Korean crisis and the 6-party talks being held were mentioned, however, no new initiatives were discussed. The crisis in Darfur was also mentioned but not discussed in any great detail.

Finally, President Bush's relief at the speech's conclusion reflects on his state as a President and U.S. affairs. In the past Bush came down to the Congressional floor amongst routing and high fives that resembled a touchdown victory dance. This time, you saw the breathe of release and polite smiles and handshakes.

This vulnerable and somber President was important for Americans and the world to see. By dehumanizing himself and the Office of the Presidency, he signaled that he was not unreceptive to criticism and unhappiness. His actions may not reflect popular opinion (he has a 30% approval rating) but at some level, he is responsive to the population he serves.