It is not hard to see how the Obama White House might have thought that tonight’s speech would be perceived as a sensible move to the center. The American exceptionalism that has been so rare in Obama’s rhetoric in the past was nice to hear, as was the celebration of entrepreneurship. And in substantive terms, they seemed at times to be going for a kind of (as Mona put it below) “Republican speech.”
In fact, a significant amount of the policy substance of this speech seemed to be lifted from (or at least to bear an odd resemblance to) the domestic-policy half of George W. Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address—including a competitiveness initiative to invest in clean energy, hire 100,000 new math and science teachers, reduce burdensome regulations, and increase federal spending on basic research; mention of comprehensive immigration reform; a promise to simplify and lower corporate taxes, advance free trade, and pass a discretionary spending freeze (Bush proposed a tiny cut, actually); a vague call to look at entitlements someday (but not today!); and a pledge to fight earmarks.
The rest could easily have come from Bill Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union Address—the high speed rail and high speed internet, the bizarre liberal nostalgia for that imaginary time when you could just go to the factory and get a job, or for the imaginary solidarity of the Sputnik era or the great Interstate Highway projects.
But this is not 1996 or 2006. Clinton had a strong economy to lean on, and was basically just trying to stay out of his own way. Bush allowed himself to advance some inane “State of the Union in a box” ideas in 2006 (believe me, I was in the White House domestic policy shop then, and well remember the pain) because he believed he needed to focus on the war, and his speech (which largely focused on the war) amply demonstrates that.
But what is the Obama team’s excuse? This speech certainly didn’t focus on foreign policy or the war on terror. This is certainly not a time when the economy is strong or steady, or when the public’s concerns are elsewhere. It is certainly not a moment for business as usual.
The Obama White House tonight seemed to be betting that the public thinks it is such a moment; that everything is basically fine again, and it is safe to go back to the usual kind of Clintonian chatter about solar panels; indeed, that doing so (as opposed to creating more massive new entitlements and taking over more car companies) would be seen as moderate; that we should be careful to learn nothing from the past three years, and from the glimpse they have given us of what a debt crisis might look like. But the result was a speech wholly and oddly divorced from the moment. That is not what a move to the center would look like today. It not only offered no concession to the strong public mood evident in the last election, it evinced no awareness—not even in passing, for rhetorical effect—of the economic facts and pressures underlying that mood and defining this time in our nation’s life. The president merely notified us that he had appointed a commission to look at the deficit, he noted that we ought to think about entitlements, he mentioned the terms “Medicare” and “Medicaid.” But he proposed to do nothing about any of it.
I think the president and his team are wrong about the public mood, but we shall see. I’m quite sure, however, that they are wrong about this moment on the merits. We have an opportunity in the next few years to avoid a truly disastrous entitlement and debt crisis and foster the conditions for vibrant growth again. We still have a chance to implement reforms that could do this without crushing austerity or terrible disruptions for seniors and other vulnerable Americans. That chance won’t last long, however, and it is profoundly irresponsible to just pretend we needn’t worry about it and can go back to the petty distractions of 1996, or (on the domestic front) 2006.
This speech was worse than bland and empty, it was a dereliction of duty. Let us hope that Republicans do not succumb to the same temptation, but rather follow Paul Ryan’s fine example.
Hear, Hear!
Well said and an excellent take on a frivolous and unnecessary "speech."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. obama is a shame and embarrassment to our nation. Thank God we still have the power of the ballot box.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Obama is one of the most incompetent presidents in history.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This speech was worse than bland and empty, it was a dereliction of duty."
Let's focus on the word "duty" and go to the place that matters:
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" (Article I, Section 7).
WHOSE duty is it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was an amazing display of tone-deafness. In an era when the American people are figuratively shouting from the rooftops to stop the spending, for him to be prattling on about high speed rail was stunning.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I think the president and his team are wrong about the public mood, but we shall see."
I pray to God that we shall, in the context of a genuine choice between frivolous largesse and a serious effort to cut Leviathan down to size.
The good thing about this speech is that, implausible flourishes aside, Obama was Obama, and so we have an opportunity for an honest discussion, not only about the serious fiscal crisis, but also the fundamental question of the size and scope of government, of which the debt is only a very serious symptom.
I hope that the Republicans seize that opportunity, and if the public still chooses to be wildly irresponsible, well, at least they will have had a choice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm confused Mr. Pres.....the speech wasn't inspirational, no solutions, just INVESTMENTS (read 'spend like hell'). The most vapid SOTU in many years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRyan's cool, direct response to Obama's vacuous and condescending speech was as close to a John Galt moment we've had in modern American politics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur politicians don't propose specific changes because they believe that we don't really want the changes. They're right. Neither Obama or Ryan spoke of specifics. Not even Tea Party Rallies advocate specific sacrifices that they want made.
Only when farmers ask for reduced farm supports; seniors demand lower social security or medicare; businesses seek higher taxes will politicians get busy and deal with the deficit.
In the meantime, both parties add to the public's denial or the real problems: (1) that Americans expect something for nothing and (2) that someone else should solve our problems. We are alcoholics that elect politicians to tell us that a couple of drinks every day is okay and will help our circulation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMike B - methinks you are appoaching troll like status. I am well aware of where revenue bills start. Your party spent the last 4 years doing it with gusto. He was speaking about foreign policy. Can you stay on topic or is that asking too much?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMikeB,
Good quote from the Constitution, however the legalistic approach overlooks the fact that Obama has a duty to LEAD the discussion about reforming entitlements if we're going to survive. Conservatives only have the House while Progressives still hold the Senate and White House - therefore they cannot do it alone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith over 20 million lawful U.S. citizens out of work and another 10 million ILLEGAL immigrants on public assistance this president stands before his nation and opines that not only should we extend amnesty to those who willfully broke our laws, but we should go one step further and extend a path to citizenship to foreign nationals that want to go to school on student visas.
Does this guy have any sense of loyalty at all to those of us born in this nation due to no fault of our own? It may cost an estimated $150 billion to deport on mass, but the ten year return on investment will be in the trillions.
Now that is an investment I could get behind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJEM, I think that Yuval was discussing domestic policy, not foreign policy, that Obama was being irresponsible in his domestic agenda, WITHOUT the excuse of pressing matters abroad.
MikeB's point seems to be that, since the House has the constitutional duty of originating tax bills, the President has no moral obligation to be fiscally responsible in his public speeches and in the proposals he sends to members of Congress for their consideration.
That position is ludicrous, and it seems that MikeB is more interested in gainsaying than in adding anything truly worthwhile, even if he has to reach for some absurdity to do so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMikeB: "Let's focus on the word "duty" and go to the place that matters:"
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Dereliction of Duty!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo talk about what the speech didn't talk about misses the point. The problem in this country isn't a lack of solutions to problems its a lack of willingness to compromise. What sense does it make to spend the next two years debating health care over again. Especially in the context of all the things the president didn't mention. If you want to bring down the debt there are three UNFUNDED items we need to look at.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe tax cuts just implemented without a way to pay for them "republicans voted for the bill as well" The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which were paid for using supplemental funding votes, remember those?
So before we talk about "big government" and "Obama's debt" and "big spending ways" at no point in American history have we had tax cuts during times of war, so we can't lay the blame at the feet of the President but at the feet of our society which wants to have cake and eat it to.
Please try to contain your right wing instincts. Did you think to let go your resentments and quest to bash whatever the president have to say regardless of its content. The president unifying message astutely addressed issues that are burning globally and affecting the US economy now. The decline in education, alternative energy, and the flee of PhDs and MDs from the US because immigration to the U.S. is hard, even to a successful scientists.....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStop polarizing. I hope you can use your enormous critical thinking ability to advance the reader thoughts and not just to be on the other side, for the sake of being on the other side....haven’t you learn anything from Tucson....which you failed to even mention in your negative column
Judging by the reactions from all sides, the president did not achieve his intended objective, selling the same old stuff in a new box with a "centrist" wrapper or in said differently, pull a rabbit out of a hat. In the words of Rocket J Squirrel, "Bullwinkle, that trick never works."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI skipped the speech, preferring instead to take Charles Krauthammer's advice: "Don't listen to what Obama says, watch what he does"...or words to that effect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is the most obvious shortcoming of MikeB's inane comment about duty: revenue is not really the problem. As conservatives seem to be constantly reminding the left, the real problem is SPENDING. This is best illustrated in the deficit. It matters not how much or how little revenue is generated if it bears not at all on how much money is spent. In fact, if the spending remains breathtakingly profligate, then restraint in the raising of revenue only exacerbates the problem at hand, namely, the nation is going broke! And this comment does not even account for the vast gulf that resides between a bill being "originated," and one passing BOTH houses of Congress and being touched by the Presidential pen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMikeB is probably good at something. Analytical thought on public policy is not it.
BRAVO! The author nailed this one. This man never cared when he shoved the healthcare bill down our throats, then after Nov.2, he smugly acknowledged that he was "shellacked". Big whoop! Total arrogance!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe was bascically saying last night: I'm open to some changes,but let's move forward. Translation: tough luck suckers, shut up and get over it!! I despise this loser.