Note: Originally posted on January 24, 2007. The colorization scheme is slightly out of date; however, it’s a close enough match to my current preferences as to be worth a look.

Following is a transcript of US Senator Jim Webb’s Democratic response to President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address for 2007, including Whole Writing markup. The Whole Writing method employs Kronology, a 12-station model of human nature and development based on the AQAL Integral Framework. The text of the address is displayed in white; Whole Writing markup is displayed in multiple colors; and my commentary is displayed in turquoise.

We have seen that President Bush’s State of the Union speech contained values rhetoric often appealing to Democratic-friendly Station 5 (and rarely, Station 6) political approaches framed in terms of the Republican-friendly values orientation of Station 3 and Station 4. His overall concerns and strategies were dominated by values at Station 2, Station 3, Station 4, and Station 5 with an average center of gravity at approximately Station 3.75.

Senator Web’s speech begins with a personal note evoking conventional political rhetoric of patriotism^{l/9, L/3} and economic prosperity^{l/9, L/4}.

Good evening.

I’m Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown — an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest^{l/9, L/3} and most prosperous^{l/9, L/4} nation on earth.

As Senator Web turns to policy concerns, he highlights the domestic issues of energy independence, economic well-being, and other middle-class concerns^{Q4, l/9, L/4}. Then he evokes keywords and buzz-phrases such as “sharing (i.e., redistributing) wealth,” “alternative energy,” and “fair trade,” that are commonly associated with the yellow, green, and teal value frameworks.

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the president’s message^{l/9, L/3.75}, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.

Further, this is the seventh time the president has mentioned energy independence^{l/9, L/4} in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil^{l/9, L/2}, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth^{l/9, L/4} in the form of alternate energy programs^{l/9, L/6}. We look forward to working with the president and his party to bring about these changes.

There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy — how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy — how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.

When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits^{l/9, L/4}. But these benefits are not being fairly shared^{l/9, L/5}. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts^{l/9, L/5}. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them^{l/9, L/2}.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization^{l/9, L/6}, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace^{l/9, L/7}.

The Democratic response to the State of the Union address evokes historical analogies to drive home additional themes stressing yellow, green, and teal values. Senator Web expresses the philosophy that government should step in to regulate capitalist markets in the interest of aiding the poor in entering the middle class^{l/9, L/5} (e.g., by raising the minimum wage). Instead of highlighting narrowly partison rhetoric, Webb justifies government intervention in markets on the basis of an Integral approach of flexibility within the flow of multiple value frameworks (e.g., “get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.”)

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy — that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase^{l/9, L/5}, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We’ve introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We’ve established a tone of cooperation and consensus^{l/9, L/6} that extends beyond party lines^{l/9, L/7}. We’re working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons^{l/9, L/7}.

With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world^{l/9, L/2}.

Although Senator Webb doesn’t explicitly appeal to many amber values in the policy section of the speech, he uses personal statements to highlight amber-altitude concerns with family, virtue, patriotism, and national service^{l/9, L/3}.

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years^{Q/2, l/3, L/3}. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country^{l/9, L/3}. On the political issues — those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death — we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm’s way.

In the final sections of the speech, Senator Webb occasionally invokes red, amber, and orange values and repeatedly invokes green values. He also twice notes the importance of performing a sort of “moral calculus” to arrive at the wisest approaches to public policy^{l/9, L/7}. In discussing war concerns, Webb offers a formula for justifying war based on teal, orange, amber, and indigo values. He employs an Integral calculus when he cites historical examples of presidents who took the “right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world.”^{l/9, L/7}.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us — sound judgment^{l/7, L/8}, clear thinking^{l/7, L/4}, concern for our welfare^{l/7, L/3}, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it^{l/7, L/9}.

The president took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable — and predicted — disarray that has followed.

The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially^{l/9, L/4}. The damage to our reputation around the world^{l/9, L/3}. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism^{l/9, L/2}. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy^{l/9, L/5}, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities^{l/9, L/6}, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq^{l/9, L/6}.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines^{l/9, L/6}. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth^{l/9, L/2}. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt^{l/9, L/2}.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves “as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world^{l/9, L/7}. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas^{l/9, L/7}. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Thank you for listening. And God bless America.

In conclusion, we have seen that Senator Webb’s response to the President’s State of the Union speech contains policy approaches often appealing to Democratic-friendly Station 5, and Station 6; however, he employs largely orange, amber, and red rhetoric to frame his message. His overall concerns and strategies reflect an average center of gravity at approximately Station 5, a level emphasizing the role of community in elevating market forces to bring them more into harmony with widely-held values such as economic fairness. Even more promising is the Democratic Senator’s nods to truly Integral approaches involving flexible and fluid decision-making, complex and balanced leadership, and multi-tiered solutions to global problems.

When comparing and contrasting President Bush’s speech and Senator Webb’s speech, bear in mind that it is not necessarily the case that a Station 3.75 approach is “worse” or “inferior” to a Station 5 approach. Although the Democratic response clearly evidences a relatively higher, more evolved, approach to domestic and foreign policy matters, it remains considerably less than “fully Integral.” [Edited to add: In my view, the goal of a political speech is not to be "fully Integral"; however, a political speech can reflect a worldview that is more closely Integral because it integrates messages, values, and policies from a variety of "lower altitude" stations. Contemporary public policy does not reach an Integral expression in its implementation; however, policy can be based on more or less Integral approaches. It is very important to note that while it is generally true that a more Integral^{l/9, L/7, L/8, L/9} the policy, the better; however, it is NOT true that "higher altitude" policies are "better" than "lower altitude" policies. An Integral approach stresses flexible and appropriate applications of a variety of values and worldviews, not an elitist, indiscriminate preference for policies based on "higher altitude" values ]Another way of highlighting the similarities and differences between the Republican and Democratic approaches is to examine their basic style or type. In Kronology, Station 4 (Repubican) is characterized as masculine, Ascending, and fixed. Station 5 (Democratic) is seen as feminine, Ascending, and mutable. Both political parties share a common orientation towards bringing values and principles to bear in raising the national character (Ascending type). Republicans tend to be more focused on the maintenance of the status quo (i.e., fixed type) whereas Democrats tend to seek more flexible and balanced solutions to problems (i.e., mutable type). Another key type difference is one of agency v. communion. Seen from this angle, party differences are largely a Mars/Venus, male/female thing. The Republican type tends to focus largely on masculine or agentic styles of achieving its goals; however, the Democratic type speaks in a more feminine and communanitarian voice.

Technorati Tags: Bush, politics, writing

Note: Originally posted on January 24, 2007. The colorization scheme is slightly out of date; however, overall it’s a close enough match to my current practice as to be worth saving.

Following is the second half of a transcript of US President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address for 2007, including Whole Writing markup. The Whole Writing method employs Kronology, a holistic model of human nature and development based on the AQAL Integral Framework. The text of the address is displayed in the default color; Whole Writing markup is displayed in multiple colors; and my commentary is displayed in turquoise. This post is part 2 of 2 (with an analysis of the Democratic Response to follow).

As we have seen, the first half of the president’s speech held a center of gravity at achievement-oriented, capitalist values^{l/9, L/4}, slightly above the approximate average rhetorical base^{l/9, L/3.5} of the Republican party. As his speech turns to the topic of the war on terror, the president begins a concerted effort to focus on the values of national defense and using violent and coercisive means to stop terror^{l/9, L/2}. As he does so, he occasionally references rhetorical “hot spots” at amber, orange, and green … but overall the tone of his speech moves lower from orange toward amber.

War on terror^{Q/3, Q/4}

For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger^{l/9, L/2}. Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that terrorists can cause. We have had time to take stock of our situation. We have added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us — unless we stop them.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict^{l/9, L/4} and the course we have followed^{l/9, L/2}. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled — that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense^{l/9, L/2}. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary^{l/9, L/3}, easy movement^{l/9, L/4}, steady financing^{l/9, L/4}, and free flowing communications^{l/9, L/5} are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented — but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast^{l/9, L/2}. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States^{l/9, L/2}. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America^{l/9, L/2}. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean^{l/9, L/2}. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a nation at war.

In the minds of the terrorists, this war began well before September 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists^{l/B, L/2}, possessed by hatred^{l/3, L/2} and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology^{l/9, L/3}. Take almost any principle of civilization^{l/9, L/4}, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats … instruct with bullets and bombs … and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent^{l/9, L/2}.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow^{l/9, L/2} moderate governments^{l/9, L/4}, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country^{l/9, L/3}. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology^{l/9, L/2}. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: “We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse.” And Osama bin Laden declared: “Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us.”

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists^{l/B, L/2} who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah — a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale^{l/9, L/2}.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people^{l/9, L/3}.

This war is more than a clash of arms — it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred^{l/9, L/6}, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom — societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments^{l/9, L/4}. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies — and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy^{l/9, L/3}. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity^{l/9, L/4}. And I say, for the sake of our own security — we must.

In the last two years, we have seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East — and we have been sobered by the enemy’s fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature^{l/9, L/4}. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections^{l/9, L/4} — choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote^{l/9, L/4} in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon’s legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists^{l/B, l/2} blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra^{Q/4, l/B, L/1}. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia — and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in^{l/9, L/2}. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

The State of the Union address turns from the war on terror to the war on Iraq. The president’s most predominant rhetorical tone is law-and-order and advancing stability^{l/9, L/3}, with occasional nods to lower and higher ideals in the spectrum of values. Although Bush’s proposal for a special advisory council for the war on terror^{Q/4, l/9, L/9} hints at indigo-level thinking, he unrealistically expects a high degree of wisdom from mainstream political leaders^{Q/4, l/9, L/4.5} with a center of gravity at around orange or yellow.

Iraq^{Q/3, Q/4}

We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq — a plan that demands more from Iraq’s elected government^{l/9, L/3}, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission^{l/9, L/2}. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law^{l/9, L/3}, respects the rights of its people^{l/9, L/4}, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror^{l/9, L/2}.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units^{l/9, L/3}. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads. And in Anbar province — where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them — we are sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out^{l/9, L/2}. We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now is the time for their government to act. Iraq’s leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad — and they must do so. They have pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party. They need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and Coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad^{l/9, L/3}. Iraq’s leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation — to share oil revenues among all of Iraq’s citizens^{l/9, L/6} … to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq^{l/9, L/4} … to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s civic life^{l/9, L/3} … to hold local elections^{l/9, L/4} … and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province^{l/9, L/3}. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secured^{l/9, L/2}. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq — because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country — and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict^{l/9, L/2}.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos^{l/9, L/0} is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy^{l/9, L/2} with new safe havens… new recruits … new resources … and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East … to succeed in Iraq … and to spare the American people from this danger.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united — in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq — and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field — and those on their way^{l/9, L/3}.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. And this is why I propose to establish a special advisory council^{Q/4, l/9, L/9} on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties^{Q/4, l/9, L/4.5}. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military — so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead^{l/9, L/3}. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps^{l/9, L/3}. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle — because we are not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy^{l/9, L/6} that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations^{Q/4, l/9, L/5} — and we are working with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf states to increase support for Iraq’s government. The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. With the other members of the Quartet — the UN, the European Union, and Russia — we are pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security.

In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive — the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we are pursuing intensive diplomacy^{l/9, L/6} to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. And we will continue to speak out for the cause of freedom^{l/9, L/4} in places like Cuba, Belarus, and Burma — and continue to awaken the conscience of the world to save the people of Darfur^{l/9, L/7}.

The State of the Union address concludes with a look at other foreign policy concerns, especially the US’s commitment to providing foreign aid^{l/9, L/5} to AIDS-striken and impoverished countries. President Bush also provides a handful of examples of individualistic heroism^{l/9, L/2}, holding up as role models several individuals whose behavior reflects primarily amber, orange, and yellow values.

AIDS/Africa^{Q/3, Q/4}

American foreign policy is more than a matter of war^{l/9, L/2} and diplomacy^{l/9, L/6}. Our work in the world is also based on a timeless truth: To whom much is given, much is required. We hear the call to take on the challenges of hunger, poverty, and disease — and that is precisely what America is doing^{l/9, L/5} We must continue to fight HIV/AIDS, especially on the continent of Africa — and because you funded our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the number of people receiving life-saving drugs has grown from 50,000 to more than 800,000 in three short years. I ask you to continue funding our efforts to fight HIV/AIDS. I ask you to provide $1.2 billion over five years so we can combat malaria in 15 African countries. I ask that you fund the Millennium Challenge Account, so that American aid reaches the people who need it, in nations where democracy is on the rise and corruption is in retreat. And let us continue to support the expanded trade^{l/9, L/4} and debt relief^{l/9, L/5} that are the best hope for lifting lives and eliminating poverty.

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self sacrifice of the American people^{l/9, L/3}. You see this spirit often if you know where to look — and tonight we need only look above to the gallery.

Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine — but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth — or the duty to share his blessings with others. He has built a brand new hospital in his hometown^{l/9, L/5}. A friend has said of this good hearted man: “Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things.” And we are proud to call this son of the Congo our fellow American.

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children’s videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born — and in just five years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America^{l/9, L/4}. And she is using her success to help others — producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children^{l/9, L/5}. Julie says of her new project: “I believe it’s the most important thing that I’ve ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe.” So tonight, we are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur — Julie Aigner-Clark.

Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks^{l/9, L/1} … pulled the man into a space between the rails … and held him as the train passed right above their heads^{l/9, L/2}. He insists he’s not a hero. Wesley says: “We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We got to show each other some love.” There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.

Tommy Rieman was a teenager pumping gas in Independence, Kentucky, when he enlisted in the United States Army. In December 2003, he was on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq when his team came under heavy enemy fire. From his Humvee, Sgt. Rieman returned fire — and used his body as a shield to protect his gunner. He was shot in the chest and arm, and received shrapnel wounds to his legs — yet he refused medical attention, and stayed in the fight. He helped to repel a second attack, firing grenades at the enemy’s position^{l/9, L/2}. For his exceptional courage, Sgt. Rieman was awarded the Silver Star. And like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, he has earned the respect and gratitude of our whole country.

In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America — and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country — and resilient, too. We have been through a lot together. We have met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence — because the State of our Union is strong … our cause in the world is right … and tonight that cause goes on.

God Bless.

In conclusion, the president’s State of the Union demonstrates a concentration of values at approximately the orange altitude, with significant appeal to red, amber, and yellow values. Domestic policy concerns frequently reveal yellow-level approaches framed to appeal to an audience at amber/orange values; other policies are clearly dominated both by amber/orange approaches and framing rhetoric. In discussing the war on terror, president Bush’s rhetoric grows strongly red (highlighting the need for an aggressive defensive response); however in speaking about the war on Iraq the rhetoric turns amber (highlighting the need to build order and structure in Iraqi society while following through on America’s duties and responsibilities).

Overall, the speech gives evidence for the president’s predominant concerns with Station 2, Station 3, Station 4, and Station 5 with an average center of gravity at approximately Station 3.75. This values framework is slightly higher than the overall average framework of the Republican party which probably resides at approximately Station 3.5. By positioning the rhetoric of the speech slightly higher than the Republican base but lower than the Democratic base, Bush shows evidence of attempting to “appeal to both sides of the aisle,” (including “independents”) with his nods to Democratic-friendly Station 5 approaches framed in terms of the Republican-friendly values orientation of Station 3 and Station 4.

Technorati Tags: Bush, politics, writing

Note: Originally posted on January 24, 2007. The colorization scheme is slightly out of date; however, it’s a close enough match to my current Whole Writing practice as to be worth saving.

Following is a transcript of US President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address for 2007, including Whole Writing markup. The Whole Writing method employs Kronology, a 12-station model of human nature and development based on the AQAL Integral Framework. The text of the address is displayed in white; Whole Writing markup is displayed in multiple colors (red, amber, yellow, green, teal, and indigo); and my commentary is displayed in turquoise. This post is part 1 of 3 (with the second half of the speech and the Democratic response to follow).

Commentary by Joe Perez

The first and most important step in any Integral criticism is simply the task of listening and understanding. Unlike conventional approaches to criticism, the Integral worldview insists that political discourse is embedded in complex frameworks of both consciously intended and unconscious meanings. The conscious or explicit aspects of these frameworks is referred to as “values/worldviews/beliefs” and the totality of all beliefs and perspectives is referred to as a “worldspace.” A person’s politics is influenced by a worldspace generally unknown to him or her, as it is disclosed only by the application of an objective model of human nature and development to an analysis of a specific discourse. In other words, all people have worldviews; however, a person’s worldspace is revealed only by an analysis from a turquoise altitude or higher. This commentary is intended to provide just such an analysis as a step in a more expansive Integral critique.

The following look at a public speech attempts to disclose the fundamental structures of its values within a holistic developmental model (i.e., the 12 stations of Kronology^{l/7, L/A}, each described by a color of the light spectrum). Looking at these structures makes explicit how the interpreter (in this case, me) “hears” or “understands” the speech’s message. It is an effort to respond to the President: “Am I hearing you correctly?” It invites a response from the reader that is more aware and attune to the developmental dynamics usually left unconscious in the dialogue. Fruitful dialogue proceeds subsequent to a shared mutual understanding, or at least, a recognition of the hermeneutical gulf separating the participants in the dialogue.

The State of the Union speech provides a glimpse into the President’s efforts to frame his political agenda^Q/4 within a framework of values and shared principles^{Q/3, l/9, L/4} that (he hopes) will achieve the widest possible measure of public support. Owing to the fact of addressing the nation’s first female Speaker of the House, President Bush provides a first-person commentary^{Q/1, Q/2} that self-consciously notes its own continuity with tradition^{l/9, L/3} and also the novel modern development within that tradition^{l/9, L/5}. His opening remarks draw upon the widest spectrum of values^l/9 from honoring ritual^{l/9, L/1} and tradition^{l/9, L/3}, appealing to the need for strong defense^{l/9, L/2}, recalling out communal military duties^{l/9, L/3}, encouraging national achievement^{l/9, L/4}, and urging financial responsibility to future generations^{l/9, L/3, L/4}.

Introduction^{Q/1, Q/2}

Thank you very much. And tonight, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of my own, as the first president to begin the State of the Union message^{l/9, L/5} with these words: “Madam Speaker.”

In his day, the late congressman, Thomas d’Alessandro Jr., from Baltimore, Maryland, saw Presidents Roosevelt and Truman at this rostrum.

But nothing could compare with the sight of his only daughter, Nancy, presiding tonight as speaker of the House of Representatives.

Congratulations, Madam Speaker.

Two members of the House and Senate are not with us tonight, and we pray for the recovery and speedy return of Senator Tim Johnson and Congressman Charlie Norwood.

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

This rite of custom^{l/9, L/1} brings us together at a defining hour — when decisions are hard and courage is needed. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway^{l/9, L/2}, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us^{l/9, L/3}. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies — and the wisdom to face them together^{l/9, L/7}.

Some in this chamber are new to the House and Senate — and I congratulate the Democratic majority. Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities^{l/9, L/3}. Each of us is guided by our own convictions — and to these we must stay faithful^{l/9, L/3}. Yet we are all held to the same standards^{l/9, L/3}, and called to serve the same good purposes^{l/9, L/3} : To extend this nation’s prosperity … to spend the people’s money wisely^{l/9, L/4} … to solve problems, not leave them to future generations^{l/9, L/3} … to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us^{l/9, L/3}.

We are not the first to come here with government divided^{l/9, L/4} and uncertainty^{l/9, L/4} in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people^{l/9, L/4}. Our citizens don’t much care which side of the aisle we sit on — as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done^{l/9, L/6}. Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity — and this is the business^{l/9, L/4} before us tonight.

A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy — and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth^{l/9, L/4} — in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs … so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move^{l/9, L/4} — and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government^{l/9, L/6} but with more enterprise^{l/9, L/4}.

President Bush presents the core of his economic agenda^{Q/4, L/4} solidly within a values and beliefs framework^l/9 of duty^{l/9, L/3}, shared responsibility^{l/9, L/3}, financial success^{l/9, L/4}, and capitalist expansion^{l/9, L/4}. Bush’s strong reliance on amber-altitude and orange-altitude values is consistent with recent Republican party messaging.

Economy^{Q/3, Q/4}

Next week, I will deliver a full report on the state of our economy. Tonight, I want to discuss three economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.

First, we must balance the federal budget^{l/9, L/4}. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C.^{l/9, L/4} We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 — and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and balance the federal budget.

Next, there is the matter of earmarks^{l/9, L/4}. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour — when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate — they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process … expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress … and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements.^{l/9, L/4} Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience^{l/9, L/3} — and so it is our duty^{l/9, L/3} to keep them permanently sound^{l/9, L/4}. Yet we are failing in that duty — and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this chamber knows this to be true — yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and good will, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid — and save Social Security.

President Bush strays from the Republican emphasis on amber and orange values with a higher-altitude message on education reform. True, the president appeals to the values of building character and virtue^{l/9, L/3} and preparing students for economic success^{l/9, L/4}. However, his advocacy of flexible networks of empowered local leaders seeking common goals set at the national level suggests higher, integral and communitarian values^{l/9, L/9}. Overall, the center of gravity of Bush’s message remains firmly amber/orange.

Education^{Q/3, Q/4}

Spreading opportunity and hope in America also requires public schools that give children the knowledge and character they need in life^{l/9, L/3}. Five years ago, we rose above partisan differences to pass the No Child Left Behind Act — preserving local control^{l/9, L/3}, raising standards in public schools^{l/9, L/4}, and holding those schools accountable^{l/9, L/3} for results. And because we acted, students are performing better in reading and math, and minority students are closing the achievement gap.

Now the task is to build on this success, without watering down standards, without taking control from local communities and without backsliding and calling it reform. We can lift student achievement even higher by giving local leaders flexibility^{l/9, L/9} to turn around failing schools and by giving families with children stuck in failing schools the right to choose something better^{l/9, L/4}. We must increase funds for students who struggle^{l/9, L/6} — and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future^{l/9, L/4}, and our country is more competitive^{l/9, L/4}, by strengthening math and science skills^l/5. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America’s children — and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law.

Although President Bush nods to a variety of methods for reforming health care, his central message is to use government standards and tax incentives to encourage private, free-market reforms^{l/9, L/5}. This yellow-altitude approach is supported primarily by an orange and amber rationale (e.g., reducing costs and medical errors) and the view that government policy should offer charity^{l/9, L/3} for the economically underprivileged. On health care, Bush’s message is actually more highly evolved (yellow) than the values framework (orange/amber) that he uses to advocate it.

Health care^{Q/3, Q/4}

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care^{l/9, L/6}. When it comes to health care, government has an obligation^{l/9, L/3} to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. We will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance^{l/9, L/5} is the best way to meet their needs. But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents^{l/9, L/5}. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills.

At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, my proposal would mean a substantial tax savings — $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans.

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick^{l/9, L/3}. I have asked the secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create “Affordable Choices” grants. These grants would give our nation’s governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts^{l/9, L/5}, help small businesses through Association Health Plans^{l/9, L/5}, reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology^{l/9, L/4}, encourage price transparency^{l/9, L/4} and protect good doctors from junk lawsuits by passing medical liability reform^{l/9, L/4}. And in all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.

On immigration policy, Bush takes a similar values-orientation to his words about health care policy (i.e., he offers a yellow agenda supported by amber/orange messaging). However, Bush also includes a strong appeal to nationalistic values and a pledge to “defend our borders” (red values). At this point in the speech, Bush’s continued emphasis on solutions involving yellow values raises the center of gravity of his overall message to orange. At this point in the speech, the center of gravity rises higher than that of the Republican party overall.

Immigration^{Q/3, Q/4}

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America — with laws that are fair and borders that are secure^{l/9, L/2}. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol^{l/9, L/3} — and funding new infrastructure and technology^{l/9, L/4}.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border — and that requires a temporary worker program^{l/9, L/5}. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won’t have to try to sneak in — and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists^{l/9, L/5}.

We will enforce our immigration laws at the work site^{l/9, L/3}, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers^{l/9, L/4} — so there is no excuse left for violating the law. We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot^{l/9, L/3} that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country — without animosity and without amnesty.

Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate — so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.

Bush’s rhetoric on energy policy runs the gamut from red to green, however overall his emphasis on private market solutions and his emphasis on “energy independence” reflect on balance an orange center of gravity falling toward amber. Bush’s fundamental concern with energy is to preserve the capitalist order of society by empowering the United States to overcome a state of dependence on more powerful forces.

Energy^{Q/3, Q/4}

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy^{l/9, L/4} that keeps America’s economy running and America’s environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent^{l/9, L/2} on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists^{l/9, L/2} — who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil and do great harm to our economy^{l/9, L/4}.

It is in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply^{l/9, L/5} — and the way forward is through technology^{l/9, L/4}. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power — by even greater use of clean coal technology … solar and wind energy … and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol — using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We have made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies in Washington and the strong response of the market. Now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years^{l/9, L/5} — thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017^{l/9, L/3} — this is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks^{l/9, L/5} — and conserve up to eight and a half billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017^{l/9, L/6}.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but will not eliminate it. So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production^{l/9, L/4} in environmentally sensitive ways^{l/9, L/5}. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve^{l/9, L/3}.

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment — and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

A future of hope and opportunity^{l/9, L/4} requires a fair, impartial system of justice^{l/9, L/3}. The lives of citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As president, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well — to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor…

Technorati Tags: Bush, politics, writing