Maybe it's not "The Most Important Speech of His Presidency" -- according to conventional wisdom, that would have been his recent announcement of a "new direction" in Iraq -- but the upcoming State of the Union address still presents a hugely significant opportunity for President Bush.

He can seize that opportunity if he sets the right ambitious, activist tone, and if he breaks decisively with the recent tradition of presenting boring laundry lists in place of oratory.

Surely, the president and his advisors understand that they must use this speech to reassure the public that the remaining two years of this administration will amount to more than gridlock, partisan posturing and polarization. The Democrats who now control both houses of Congress made a credible start with their well-advertised "100 Hours" agenda -- winning passage of a series of largely insignificant, demonstrably popular and mostly uncontroversial measures.

Some of these feel-good gestures (like the lavish funding for embryonic stem cell research) will no doubt inspire Bush vetoes. But the president should avoid making any reference whatever to these forthcoming battles. Doing so would amount to a tacit acknowledgment that the Democrats now set the agenda and that he merely responds, enabling them to focus ongoing debate on issues on which both the public and Congressional majorities clearly side with them.

In order to regain the initiative, to rally demoralized Republicans, to restore the reformist edge and ambitious conservative vision that recently have been overwhelmed by setbacks in Iraq and at the ballot box, President Bush must chart a middle course between conciliation and confrontation, deference and defiance. He can't come across like a whipped puppy that's eager to please, but he must also avoid any suggestion of stubborn obstructionism that ignores the messages of the recent elections.

To convey the right flavor of energy and engagement, the president should concentrate on three essentials for the State of the Union Address:

1. Startle the Country With Brevity and Focus

Let's face it: Most SOTU speeches are snoozers -- even when delivered by first class orators like Reagan and Clinton. All the departments of government contribute their own ideas during the preparation period, and expect some nod from the president. These stately, lumbering addresses provide pomp and grandeur and lots of opportunity for partisan applause, but only rarely can anyone remember what the president actually said.

If Bush kept his remarks to less than a half hour (including applause) rather than the customary hour-or-more, he'd throw the opposition and the media (often the same thing, by the way) utterly off balance. Rather than listing all his hopes and plans in the speech, he should sketch out broad visions -- and simultaneously release to the press and Congress far more detailed plans and proposals.

Last year, President Bush offered a lengthy list of worthy propositions covering the broadest possible range of security, foreign policy, economic, environmental, social and cultural issues. Even his most devoted supporters would find it difficult to recall any of these suggestions. At the moment, the public wants a sense of change and movement -- of logjams breaking, of progress and cooperation. The president can capture that spirit if he sketches a few lofty but comprehensible goals that people can remember, and may want to discuss the next day around breakfast tables or water coolers at work.

2. Emphasize Common Goals, Leaving Specifics to Future Fights

Even on the bitterly divisive question of Iraq policy, President Bush must affirm that he and his Democratic critics share the same crucial aims: a viable, pro-western, anti-terrorist government in Iraq, and the return of most of our troops before the end of his presidency. If he pledges to achieve dramatic force reductions within that specified time period, the Democrats won't contradict him on the desire for a stable Iraq -- even though many of them no longer believe that this long-term goal of U.S. policy is worth further sacrifice.

By the same token, the American people want to see ethical reform and a reduction in the influence of lobbyists and big business. The president should announce that he shares that desire with the Democrats, and therefore demands a new effort to scale back the biggest source of corruption: the intrusion of government bureaucracy into every corner of the economy and every intimate detail of our lives.

This speech could provide an unparalleled opportunity to link the public desire to clean up influence peddling and special interests with a sweeping new effort to scale back regulation and lawsuits and the diabolical complications of the tax system that help make the sleazy dealing all but inevitable.

Energy independence remains another area where the president can stress common goals. He's spoken at length about energy issues in each of his previous SOTU speeches, but even his surprising promotion of hydrogen vehicles made little impression. This time, he should sound an impassioned call for three over-arching aims that the Democrats must enthusiastically support -- much stronger conservation and energy efficiency, more development of alternative energy sources, and quickly increased production of domestic petroleum. He must plead for the necessary interdependence of these three goals, suggesting that an emphasis on only one or two of them will make meaningful progress impossible.

Finally, he should surprise the world and energize his base by pledging himself to work tirelessly for one of the two huge issues which Democrats assume he'll never dare to touch: entitlement reform to protect the government's future solvency, and/or radical, across-the-board tax simplification. In his State of the Union, he should get the country to acknowledge the worthiness of his broad purposes -- shoring up Social Security and Medicare to prevent their future collapse, and rescuing the overburdened American taxpayer from the nightmarishly complex process of filing returns and trying to dodge taxes. Even if the Democrats block all progress in this direction, he will still benefit by forcing them to respond to his (conservative) reform agenda. Continued...