As is often the case, President Bush’s State of the Union speech, the first of his second term, was long on ideals but short on details. The president Wednesday pledged to make tax cuts permanent while balancing the budget, to spread democracy in the world while fighting terrorism and to reform Social Security while not cutting benefits for current and soon-to-be retirees.

In each instance he gave few details on how these goals would be achieved. More importantly, other than calls for bipartisanship, the president did not explain how he would bridge the divide between Republicans and Democrats, between those who want a quick withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and those who want the United States to stay longer to rebuild the country or between those who want the deficit reduced and those who want tax cuts extended.

On the domestic side, Mr. Bush focused much of his address on his plans for reforming Social Security. While he continues to exaggerate the future financial problems facing the retirement benefit system, the president finally provided some details about the changes he is seeking to make. Under the president’s proposed plan, workers would eventually be able to put 4 percent of their wages into personal retirement accounts. The money could only go into a conservative mix

of bonds and stock funds, Wall Street fees would not eat up the earnings and the account could not be emptied all at once, the president said.

While these restrictions could make the plan more palatable, Mr. Bush did not answer questions such as how the change to personal accounts will help address the shortfall between the amount of money Social Security is expected to take in and what it must pay out in future years. In fact, the switch would worsen the shortfall.

In an unusual move, congressional Democrats verbally challenged the president during his speech when he made dire predictions about the financial solvency of Social Security.

The rest of his domestic agenda was a list of ideas and policy directions. Included on the list were more funding for medical research to “serve human dignity,” anti-gang measures that teach young men to respect women, expanded use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful convictions, especially in death penalty cases. Unfortunately,

the president also reiterated his commitment to a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, a divisive measure that failed to gain enough support in Congress last year.

Iraq, naturally, was the centerpiece of the president’s international agenda. The night’s most poignant moment came when Iraqi human rights advocate Safia Taleb al-Suhail, purplish ink still staining her right index finger signifying she had voted in Iraq, embraced Janet Norwood, the mother of a Marine sergeant killed in Fallujah.

Correctly, the president declined to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Instead, he said American troops would remain until enough Iraqis are trained to protect their country themselves. This is a good goal, but the president failed to mention that it is far from being achieved.

If the president hopes to move forward on the numerous agenda items he outlined Wednesday, he must convince Congress and the American people that he has the right priorities and the right approach. The details will require a lot more explaining.