President Obama’s State of the Union address and the Republican and Tea Party responses to it were a dismal occasion. From the terminal platitude that all are “part of the American family,” to the likelihood that a girl in Tucson may “have dreams like the rest of us,” which “is what sets us apart as a nation,” it was a groaning farrago of clichés and unlikely undertakings, followed by replies that had been written before the contents of the president’s address were known and had almost nothing to do with what he said. I do not believe that Mr. Obama thinks the United States is the only nation on earth where young people in one region of the country are likely to have similar ambitions to those in other sections of the country. “We measure our progress by the success of our people.” And that progress is partly “thanks to tax cuts we passed,” referring to the Bush tax cuts whose continuation Mr. Obama fought to the last ditch. The president fantasized that “throughout history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists with the support that they need.” It has done nothing of the kind, apart from some World War II military activities. Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers, the only inventors the president actually named, did not receive one cent from any government, any more than NASA “created millions of new jobs.”
Advertisement
Claiming the need to “raise expectations for every child,” like promises to “get rid of loopholes” in the tax system, and the promise to “find a bipartisan solution to strengthening Social Security,” while we “make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt,” should be an impeachable offense, as a high misdemeanor, both substantively and stylistically. The speech was largely a tired porridge of the president’s old, time-warped pastiche of leftist postures from his university years. Millionaires had to “give up their tax break.” (They don’t have one.) Millions of clean jobs were out there somewhere. (They aren’t.) And although the president’s imperishable green delusion was down to a commendation of two men who founded a solar-shingle business in vacant government storage space, there was not a word about increasing domestic oil production or transferring much oil use to plentiful natural gas.
The president’s listless delivery and oppressive vagueness robbed of any credibility his jaunty promises of “rebuilding America.” “Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in roads and railways . . . [so] we will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges.” (The last time there were intimations of “shovel-ready projects,” all that was shovelable was the horse manure of roseate predictions that accompanied a trillion dollars of borrowed and ineffective stimulus.) The president promised that in 25 years, 80 percent of Americans will have access to high-speed rail; and that he would “in five years make it possible to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless to 98 percent of Americans.” The tepid response of even his own followers did not stoke up much credulity.
Exports, Obama said, will double by 2014. But the only manufactured exports that the country has retained after outsourcing almost everything else to the countries from which it has borrowed trillions of dollars to buy them are aircraft and advanced-technology equipment. There is not the faintest hint of how the exported quantities of these products will double, and certainly nothing to inspire hope that anything that has been outsourced will be repatriated, to be made by the huge numbers of unskilled laborers who will be affected by Mr. Obama’s promise to “take on illegal immigration.” The promised “review of government regulations” is a commendable recognition that the commerce of the country is being strangled; given the president’s status as the most zealous and righteous regulator in American history, the offhand promise carried something less than the fervor of the grace of conversion.
"The president fantasized that “throughout history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists with the support that they need.” It has done nothing of the kind, apart from some World War II military activities."
While the general thrust of your argument is correct the last bit is flatly wrong. After WWII the Federal government was convinced to continue support of pure research and related development, e.g. look at how the Basic Research Division of the Radiation Laboratory located at MIT became MIT's interdepartmental Research Laboratory of Electronics.
For something that as a newspaperman you're all too familiar with, the Internet directly descended from ARPAnet, which was developed to allow scientists and engineers to share scarce and expensive computer resources, e.g. access to the MACSYMA symbolic math program running on MIT machines in the '70s.
I can never stand to watch a Dem president give a State of the Union address, and so I don't. I would rather read the sober reflections on statements a President has made, available 36 hours later -- and Mr. Black, yours are quite sobering, and the review is quite thorough.
Based on your review, I suspect I missed seeing something akin to a tone deaf front office cheerleader trying to rally the Detroit Lions fanbase during the recent 0-16 season with, "Wait until we invest more money in quality draft picks, which you know we'll choose wisely!"
One example of a dumb "draft pick" is Obama's goal to bring "high speed rail service" to 80% of Americans. Apart from being tone deaf to the desires of most Americans to avoid mass transport via modern day cattle cars, has the President gotten any estimates of what the costs would be to acquire long, straight stretches of rights of way through the most densely developed portions of America where those 80% of the people live? His trains can't hit 200 MPH on tracks straight enough to miss high population areas -- the corridors just aren't there! Even if they were, think of the time necessary for environmental impact studies, and the number of snail darter like critters and red cockaded woodpeckers that would be found within the path.
So, I'm glad I didn't waste my time watching the President try to raise hopes with infrastructure "draft picks" such as his high-speed rail dreams. I've focused on just one of the examples, and I'll be interested in seeing comments by others adding to Mr. Black's reflections.
As the saying goes, "You are what you eat." Likewise, I would say "You deserve what you elect." Based on that, this country deserves the mess that has been created by Obama. The only real solution we have for our problems is to get rid of him in November, 2012 and put a grown up in the Oval Office.
Mr. Black you are absolutely correct in that his speech was devoid of real fact and the responses were actually worse. React to the speech, give god counterpoints to the speech, don't give us something you said 20 times before. Debate is the ability to thrust on the return and we got nothing with power and determination. Debt is going to be the only issue in the next 2 election cycles for if it is not dealt with then there may not be a country left to vote for. States will begin to think about going it alone and becoming their own sovereign nations. Texas was in the beginning of the last century and others could do the same. With the report today that SSI is 50+ billion in the red this year there is no more time to waste.
I long for the days when SOTU's were delivered in writing by post from the President's desk to the Speakers desk...I must say, if I were President, SOTU's "ceremonies" would be the first thing to go!!
One small correction. It's not quite true that the Wright Brothers "did not receive one cent from any government." In 1909, the War
Department paid $30,000 for the Army Flyer.
“Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in roads and railways . . . [so] we will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges.”
We spend more on health care than Europe does, and that's a bad thing. We need to spend less. But they spend more on infrastructure than we do, and that's a bad thing too. We need to spend more.
Mr. Black shows once again that the pen is mightier than the sword. Would that most of American voters read this instead of watching American Idol or MTV.
@Bob Sacamento:
It's really quite simple. We need to match our spending exactly to that of Europe's. Because Europe is better than we are, and if they spend more on one thing and less on another, then we need to get with the program and emulate them.
What's that? Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain are all teetering on the edge of financial oblivion?
And we (America, that is) spend more on the defense of Europe than they do on it themselves? Here, at least, I agree that we should match their apathy regarding their own sovereignty and well-being.
And what's that? If Europe is so cool, why was the entire 20th century riven by genocidal conflicts originating there? I dunno, bad luck, I guess, cause they have more kinds of cheese and better wine and stuff. And soccer, and high-speed rail.
Oh boy Conrad, aren't you just a ray of sunshine! I bet you are the life of the party. I'm sure the guys are beating down your door to tailgate with you on Super Bowl Sunday.
Don't worry though, we'll be through with this president by...
2017.
PS - that just means job security for you at National Review, where all the rest of the jolly Real Americans get their take on the news...
Mr. Black, your comments on Obama's SOTU and his performance record over the last two years are largely accurate but such comments are beginning to sound like more of the same harping. Anyone that really believes in smaller government could never have voted for a candidate that asked Joe the plumber on national TV to acquiesce to his suggestion that Joe give up his earnings so that the government could "spread it around." And since over half the population voted for him, the implication is that half or more Americans believe the government is "entitled" to redistribute wealth. I know that concern over the national debt may have awoken some people to the dangers of big government, but my observations tell me that cutting back on government largesse is vital only so long as it does not get personal.
I saw a commentator on the O'Reilly show recently who said she was strongly opposed to Obamacare, but concedes that some parts of it are good. She likes being able to keep your kids on the family health insurance plan for an additional three years,until age 26; she also likes that insurers will no longer be able to exclude people with pre-existing conditions. Well, who wouldn't like these benefits! I also like these benefits, but who is going to pay for it?
I think that Obama understands a basic point on human nature that many of his critics do not understand, which is that people are more interested in their immediate material well being than they are in the health of their society. So many people are against big government only to the extent that they are not giving back what has become "entitlements."
So Republicans might be the the voice of reason at this point in history, but Democrats are the voice of free lunch. The Republicans lose this debate until people receive the bill, or hopefully until they are convinced it is coming. Maybe you are right that Paul Ryan does not have the charisma needed to make this argument, but he can certainly play a role in developing the argument.
Ignoring criticism of Mr. Black's thoughts, up to now, his is the only honest, rather, mostly honest response I've read anywhere, including on NRO. Substantively, Obama has never given a good speech. If you grade him on comforting cliches and the public's readiness to be lulled into oblivion, I suppose all of his speeches are good. If you grade him on saying anything meaningful, factual, or true, he's an enormous flop, every time. Comfort food may feel good, perhaps taste good, but it is often not very good for you. It can cause flatulence, digestive problems, weight gain, tooth decay, cancer and, over time, death. Once in a while, it's reasonably safe, but a steady diet of it should be avoided. Reality and the facts are better nourishment.
All true, but since when has the SOTU address been anything but a bowl of pablum. It's becoming a joke given how divorced it is from reality. They should just go back to mailing it in unless they have something totally serious to say.
