State of the Union Review

I had to catch the State of the Union on replay, which meant that I heard the commentary before I heard the speech--the commentary was inane, the speech pretty good.  As is typical for State of the Union speeches, a good portion was platitudinous fluff, i.e. paeans to the resilience of our spirit, the nobility of our people, and "a better future for our children."  To wit:

It's because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.)   

Did anyone catch this in the opening?  "But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run...victory was very much in doubt."  Those who still seem to see themselves as representing the Confederate States of America might see that battle some differently.

Some of his critics have said the President seems too professorial and doesn't have the common touch.  He has obviously heard that criticism and was clearly trying to speak to working citizens and connect with them at several points.  This passage was typical:

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

In another move to distance himself from the Big Banks and Wall Street, the first thing he said about the economy was how everyone, including himself, hated the bank bailout.  Nevertheless, he felt he had to support "the last administration's effort to create the financial rescue program."  (Translation:  Bush started it, and you supported him.) 

Secondly, he would impose a fee on the Big Banks--opposed by Wall Street, he didn't mind noting--"to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need."  The dour expressions on the faces of his opponents should, as Joan Walsh notes, find a place in Democratic campaign commercials this fall.

The fees are to reimburse the government for some of the costs of the bank bailout, which is good, but much more than this is needed.  How about breaking up the Big Banks?  Anything "too big to fail" needs to be made smaller.   

Finally, after one year of putting up with hypocritical abuse from the opposition, he reminded them and the American people that most of their economic woes are attributable to the policies of the previous administration.  To the consternation of many, he had not pinned the recession on his predecessor, as Reagan did in 1982--not, that is, until just now:

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

That said, and it needed to be, the President seemed to make a point of introducing a number of Republican-friendly measures, such as:  small business tax credits, elimination of capital gains taxes on small business investment, nuclear power plants, so-called "clean coal," a federal spending freeze, and opening up offshore drilling.  (At least he didn't say "drill, baby drill.")  

The President did three things well:  (1)  He reminded people of how we got into the financial crisis, but (2) left the door open for cooperation with the opposition in a number of areas, and (3)  labored, with some success, to get ahead of the public mood on banks and Wall Street.

What he didn't do as well:  (1)  Foreign policy got relatively short shrift, which, considering the peoples' priorities right now, probably worked.  (2)  He encouraged passing health care reform, but took no specific lead;  (3)  He accepted Republican frames on deficits.  ("Families across the country are tightening their belts, and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.")  This is just flat wrong.  In a recession, the government needs to spend.  In 1937, FDR thought budget-balancing was the thing to do, which promptly increased unemployment.

Much comment also focused on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito who was peeved when the President criticized the recent Supreme Court decision reaffirming the ludicrous idea that corporations are people and money is speech.  Justices usually just sit there like bumps on a log, which is supposed to convey seriousness-of-purpose and nonpartisanship.  Frankly, Alito's reaction didn't bother me as much as it bothered Glenn Greenwald.  Any pretense of Supreme Court bipartisanship already went out the door with Bush v. Gore.  Besides, he just mouthed "not true."  He didn't yell "you lie!"

 

Comments

[Hypatia]

I'm with Greenwald. If you had multiple Justices mouthing their disagreements with the President during the State of the Union, I imagine it would be a tad distracting. Alito should have sat like a bump on a log.

I switched the speech off halfway through and don't think it did much for Obama, either way. He's made a few too many speeches. He did a fine job against the House GOP members today. It helps when you're dealing with idiots, of course, but it was a performance worthy of Clinton, W.. More, please.

[John Petty]

Good comment. Yes, Bill would have excelled in that environment also--as president. Nowadays, I imagine he wouldn't have kept his cool as well as Obama did.