Unclear Promises and Empty Rhetoric: Obama’s State of the Union Address
“Here’s a reality about a second-term presidency: You have a narrow window — at the beginning of the term — to persuade Congress to do something big. For Ronald Reagan, it was tax reform (which he achieved); for Bill Clinton, it was education reform (which failed); and for George W. Bush, it was Social Security reform (which crashed and burned). And this is perhaps the best way to view President Obama’s State of the Union address at 9:00 pm ET tonight. It is essentially his last chance to lay the groundwork for domestic achievements.”
I turned on CNN tonight expecting these big domestic policy pushes. I watched President Obama make his way to the podium, expecting to see a freshly re-inaugurated executive spearhead reforms for Congress, with concrete points for the two most important questions when it comes to public policy: “Why?” and “How?” I expected more riveting and inspiring rhetoric than Barack Campaign Obama ever produced. I expected to see the most powerful leader of the free world use his peoples’ mandate to institute positive change.
To be perfectly honest, none of my expectations were met.
The President began his speech with a John F. Kennedy quote about the purpose of the State of the Union Address. And to me, this set a bad tone from the get-go. Because quoting a popular former president struck me as piggybacking on another man’s popularity, as opposed to inspiring a divided Congress with original, and perhaps more adequately tailored rhetoric.
As Obama transitioned from his introduction to his main policy points, he threw in some crowd-pleasers such as “supporting the middle class” and “equal opportunity for each child.” And while this brought many Democrats to their feet, there were no phrases that truly stuck with me. I kept waiting for a climax, a purpose, something passionate enough to inspire. But it never happened.
Moving on to his policy proposals, I was once again, disappointed. I heard little mention of concrete solutions. There were kernels of good ideas in his deficit reduction and green energy programs, but I did not hear any solid legislation proposals or methodology. He also spent very little time addressing each issue, trying instead to cover as many domestic policy issues as possible, and even dipping into foreign policy and nuclear disarmament. Though he spoke with a steady, even pace, I felt myself being rushed through issue after issue, as if Obama didn’t want me to think on his proposals long enough to find parts to question. The one concrete idea he proposed was raising the minimum wage to $9, which made my inner economist cringe (because minimum wage is a price floor that creates a surplus of workers).
Furthermore, the President had emphasized at the beginning of his speech that none of his policy suggestions would increase the deficit by a single penny. But right after this sweeping statement, he began going through policy after policy, suggesting the creation of new government programs and the expansion of existing ones. By definition, this means increased government spending which naturally increases the deficit. I was expecting some sort of explanation after each proposal about how the President would counter these expenses with revenues or cuts elsewhere (in other words, I was waiting for him to back his previous statement), but Obama made no such mention. Marco Rubio was quick to criticize this afterwards in the Republican rebuttal to the President’s speech.
“Instead of striking a conciliatory tone and proposing compromises, as he did throughout much of his first term, Mr Obama laid out an unashamedly partisan agenda. He reiterated past calls not just for higher taxes on the rich, but also for more restrictive gun laws and for concerted action to slow climate change—all ideas which Republicans abhor, and which will therefore struggle to make headway in the House of Representatives, which is under Republican control.”
The President’s speech ended with a sweeping presentation of Gun Control reform. Directly referencing three people associated with gun violence or heroism, he addressed special guests in the crowd. He preceded every policy proposal with a tragic story of gun violence, and used considerable emotional appeal. I found these tactics staged, inappropriate, and, quite frankly, slimeball moves for a person in his position. Don’t get me wrong, what happened in Newton was horrific, and there are certainly many lessons to be learned from there; but emotional stories do not serve as the basis for a public policy.
I created this blog for two linked purposes: to better educate myself about political issues, and to try to inspire others to do the same. Seeing the President of the United States deliver such a speech before Congress, devoid of inspiration, originality, or concrete specificity, truly sickens me. How can Americans make informed decisions when our politicians don’t believe us capable of understanding more than empty promises and emotional stories?
I agree completely that President Obama’s State of the Union address did not live up to expectations, and I as well was largely disappointed. However I did feel that there were valid reasons behind why the President proposed his agenda the way he did. As an economics major myself, I understand and sympathize with your pain at hearing that the President wants to raise the minimum wage to $9. Like you said, an artificially set minimum wage creates a surplus of workers, etc. However, public policy is not always economically ideal. As I”m sure you’re well aware the idea behind setting a federal minimum wage is that any person working full time in the U.S. would make enough money to sustain a decent living. And although raising the minimum wage could pose economic problems, the idea that working class citizens should not be confined to poverty is something that I believe in firmly. Therefore I think the Congress should at least discuss the benefits and drawbacks of raising the federal minimum wage, as I am sure they will in months to come.
I also agree with you that public policy should be grounded in logic rather than emotional appeals, as much as possible. However, from reading I have done recently, it seems that Obama is struggling to convince Congress to even vote on the issue of gun control reform. With this in mind, and in an atmosphere where gun control reform is such a highly controversial issue, I can understand why Obama resorted to emotional appeals in order to call Congress to at least vote on gun control. I don’t remember exactly but there was a quote where Obama stated that the various people he mentioned that had been affected by gun violence at least deserve a vote on the issue. As emotional as it is, I did feel this was a valid point.
So all in all, I agree the State of the Union Address kind of sucked. But there were a few points I thought were valid.