SOTU and Response: Nice Talk But Mostly For Show
Let me make it clear from the start that I’ve never been one who thinks that events like the State Of The Union are much more than a splashy show. It’s the closest we come to a formal state occassion and so we make the most of the hype but it rarely lasts much beyond a few days.
Just to test the theory, can any of us remember much from any prior SOTU ?
Has there ever really been a major policy emerging from a past SOTU ?
I’m sure our readers will be able to come up with a few but the fact is most memorable and productive Presidential speeches come at other times. LBJ calling on Congress to pass Civil Rights legislation, Reagan calling for Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, Kennedy calling for us to go to the moon. All of these are speeches we remember but as far as I know none were SOTU’s.
Having said that I can certainly not deny that President Obama is a spellbinding speaker and he was in his best form tonight. He had much of the chamber in the palm of his hand and probably much of the public. My guess would be that the polls will show strong approval of the speech and the President will likely get a short term bump in the polls.
However it’s worth pointing out that past Presidents like Clinton and Reagan could also deliver speeches like this but it didn’t mean that the Congress moved to pass their agenda. The speeches went well but they didn’t always deliver in terms of policy, and this seems especially true with the SOTU’s.
Part of the reason for this, I think, is that these speeches very seldom present much in terms of a bold new policy agenda. When JFK called for us to go to the moon, when LBJ quoted from We Shall Overcome, those were bold departures and caught the imagination of the country.
By contrast, most of what President Obama called for tonight is the same stuff he’s called for in prior speeches. There was a little more emphasis on some middle class policies but for the most part it was the same as before. A good example of this was when he discussed the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. All day the media had been hyping the idea that he was going to call on Congress to repeal the policy.
Had he done that, had he directly challenged Congress by telling them “I call on the Congress now to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Program” that would have been very bold. But instead he simply said that he would ‘work with Congress and the military to repeal it’.
This is pretty much what he has said a number of times before, most recently at the HRC dinner in 2009. It was far from a bold or dramatic new policy.
I’m not blaming him for that, sort of by definition when you give a SOTU speech you are promoting your agenda and obviously that agenda is not going to be new. In addition perhaps because they are trying to push the main agenda there is a natural reluctance to take too bold of a stance on new policies. You just can’t stack too much stuff all at once.
I also think that the pattern of spending a good chunk of the speech making excuses for why everything bad is someone else’s fault while every good thing is solely because of his policies is getting a bit old. If you want to sit in the big chair it’s time to move past the ‘not me/he did it’ and get on with policy and moving forward.
This is not to say that I didn’t like much of what was in the speech. I liked his call for tax cuts to help out small businesses, I approve of expanding educational opportunities, I support health care reform. I might not entirely agree with him on every detail of how to accomplish these goals but I do think that for the most part the policies he discussed were good ones.
However discussing policies and actually accomplishing them are two very different things. He called for much of this in his 2008 campaign and his 2009 speeches but that doesn’t mean we’ve gotten much done. Much of this is due to the partisan divide in Washington and while I agree with Obama that it needs to come to an end I’m not particularly confident that it will.
I’m not going to get into the blame game on that other than to say I think both sides share the blame for the mess. I plan some future posts on the subject so for now I’ll stick to the SOTU and response.
Speaking of the response I think that the GOP has certainly established the new pattern. Having the address in the State Capitol building with an audience made it much more effective than past efforts by both parties (Republicans under Obama/Clinton or Democrats under Bush/Bush/Reagan).
In fact my guess is that in future years both parties will adopt a similar kind of setting. By definition any response to a SOTU from the US Capitol building will not match up but at least this helps out a little.
Regarding the specifics of what the GOP response said I’d give a similar response to what I did with Obama. I liked much of what they said in broad policy terms. I do think we need to curb spending (indeed this is one thing all sides seemed to agree on tonight) and I do prefer government to be as local as possible. But like with Obama my general agreement as to broad policy terms does not always translate to specific agreement on specific items.
So my overall reaction to both addresses might be summed up as good image but not much new policy.
The real test will be putting action with the words. And that goes for both sides. Obama says he wants to cut spending, streamline government, work with both parties. The GOP says they want to reach across the aisle. It’s time for both of them to do just that.
The Democrats need to accept that they cannot simply dictate policy and expect the GOP to fall in line. The GOP needs to accept that they are in the minority and so they will have to accept things they might not love. And both sides need to accept that the other has legitimate views and that sometimes they need to agree to disagree without calling the other side evil.
The copyrighted cartoon by RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch, is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved.
43 Responses to “SOTU and Response: Nice Talk But Mostly For Show”
I largely agree with this point of view on all scores.
The only thing I disagree with is calling the other side evil. In general, as I observe the world, conservatives call liberals power grabbing paternalists and liberals just call conservatives stupid or ignorant. Not sure either is better than evil but there you have it.
It was a fine speech, but as you say Patrick, the real test will be putting actions with the words. Unfortunately those actions are going to require the cooperation of both parties if they are going to be effective, and despite appeals to bipartisanship I don't really expect republicans to step up to the plate. Given their history does anyone really think they will?
I was surprised by tonights speech. I had though that the Massachusetts election would have given the President pause and he would modify some of his agenda. It clearly did not change the agenda the Democrats have been pushing; they are just going explain health care and other issues better. Obviously we dummies did not understand the health care bill the first time. So the President will have to give us a remedial course so we will understand that he and the Democratic congress are just wonderful and looking out for our best interests. Still elitists, still arrogant and still far left of what most Independents want in their government.
Yeah you still haven't said what you want.
WHAT does your party want??
Where is it? What do you offer?
You have nothing you are just full of crap.
What does YOUR party want??
The State of the Union address has become a spectacle and as with other public statements, too much is expected and interpreted from it. (The President is not our parent, or part of our “collective soul,” and mere words are not the be-all and end-all of our existence on Earth or merely in the USA.)
The other major party's response (a formality that reinforces the Duopoly — yeech) has been improved, as Patrick says, but really would make sense only if the other major party were organized as a true formal “Opposition,” such as advocated by Charles M. Hardin. (I'm not an adherent of this, but recognize it as a good piece of work on the idea of an Opposition, party government, and related issues.)
“By definition any response to a SOTU from the US Capitol building will not match up but at least this helps out a little.”
Note that anyone personifying the Opposition, especially with our separation of powers and tension between President and Congress, should be associated with the Capitol building.
* * *
The speech itself was okay. Most interesting to me was not only that Obama is pressing forward (is it “progress”?) with his agenda that includes health care legislation, the spending freeze isn't planned to start for another year (ha!), and he took pains to separate the bulk of the deficit and debt and pin it on earlier years (i.e., Bush, oh, and also the other Republicans), and accepting responsibility for only this past year's fiscal fun (which he rationalized in the address, too). He's leaving it to Congress (and both parties) to join him sometime later in turning to the rest (most) of the debt and deficits, and to the reform of entitlements.
The energy portion was interesting. He mentioned normal energy sources that are neglected or disparaged as anti-PC (nukes, offshore oil and gas, clean coal), and which I doubt will get more than tonight's lip service, but he, surprisingly, also is insisting on “climate change” politics-based legislation despite public objections to it when the House rushed to pass such bad legislation.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/v-f…
Against the Health care plan? express your opinion at http://www.obamahealthcareplan.org
Hardin's “Opposition” idea is expounded here. (He also wrote a book about it, but the essence is in this paper.)
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/17100
Look Patrick the republicans are forcing 60% majority to pass ANYTHING.
That’s obstructionism by any description, by filibuster.
The President is being FORCED to give pork payouts to buy republican votes, then they condemn him for pork!
They don’t even know what they want. They NEVER say what they want. So they must only want power. They just want power and they don’t want it to help our people because they NEVER help our people. They act as if they are the ONLY Americans and everybody else is something less….probably communist….yet THEY borrow massive amounts of money from the communists!
Republicans, by their actions, are the proverbial “world gone mad” scenario.
Our Uggs Outlet online store supply all kinds of Ugg Boots,such as Ugg Classic Cardy Boots,Ugg Bailey Button Boots,Ugg Classic Short Boots,Ugg Classic Tall Boots-All Orders Enjoy Free Shipping,Non-Taxes,1 Week Delivery To Your Door
Anti PC? You are such a liar. He never said anything such as that!
Yeah spending freeze for three years….one year into the next presidency…whats wrong with that? No republican ever CUT SPENDING even that much.
You just spout crapola. Nothing but goofy crapola.
“The President is being FORCED to give pork payouts to buy republican votes”
In Nebraska and Louisiana?
Father Time, we are asking you to tone it down. The TMV commenter's rules say no vulgarity, no name calling other writers or commenters, no ad hominem attacks. We realize there are many fired up on all sides, and we encourage vigorous debate and discussion and teaching.
Appreicate your cooperation. Otherwise debate away with your facts and ideas as hard as you wish.
Thanks
dr.e
Yeah that “pork” was healthcare that the republicans decided they would not participate in. He had to placate the CONSERVATIVES within the democrat party. So don’t say we are all liberals.
This is the most pragmatic president since Eisenhower and you should have realized that after his speech tonight. He is ASKING for bipartisan help to help our people from massive unemployment and financial distress and he is asking it from the republican MINORITY whom should have the guts to present compromise, not the other way around.
Why don't the republicans recognize his commanding majority and the platform on which he kicked their butts on getting elected? You republicans just want to make him fail so that NOTHING gets done for our people because you don't care about our people and it is becoming apparent that you never will. I have to ask why, because it makes no sense to me. The distribution of wealth in this country is NOT equitable in comparison to contribution.
Right, but I've made no “vulgarity”.
Unless you display a list of words you consider “vulgar”, beyond the seven deadly, vulgarity remains subjective and undefined.
“You republicans just want to make him fail so that NOTHING gets done for our people because you don't care about our people and it is becoming apparent that you never will. I have to ask why, because it makes no sense to me.”
The answer is that you are mistaken, and there is no “why” explaining what isn't.
Actually agreeing to legislation where someone else will pick up part of your bill seems very liberal, maybe the progressives are getting through to Landrieu and Nelson after all.
Patrick-
“The Democrats need to accept that they cannot simply dictate policy and expect the GOP to fall in line. The GOP needs to accept that they are in the minority and so they will have to accept things they might not love. And both sides need to accept that the other has legitimate views and that sometimes they need to agree to disagree without calling the other side evil”
In other words Stagnation. A system that cannot serve it's people because the majority, (by large amounts), cannot get a bill passed. What kind of Representative Democracy is that? What country can function with such a ridiculous requirement for consensus?
The filibuster must be destroyed. It is worthless and works against the majority’s will. What good does it do to have a majority if you STILL cannot get a bill passed a weak minorities blathering filibuster?
The filibuster is evil.
Republicans haven't had a majority like the Dems enjoy since 1923. Still the progressives blame the minority
Yeah you are right, but its not the “progressives” its the conservative minority within the democrat party that is blocking! So you will now have to say that the democrats are not all liberals where as the republicans ARE all conservatives. So whom, prey tell, are the “extremists”..??
Seems to me the Democrat party are the moderates and the Conservative Republicans are the extremists.
…”someone else will pick up part of your bill”
What on earth are you talking about?
Someone else ALWAYS picks up part of the bill. It's called taxation and in our circumstance the RICH are not paying their fair share and CEO's are ripping off the system.
Why do you hate the American worker?
I don't, I want them to be able to retain more of the money they worked for and spend it as they see fit, not how the government sees fit to spend it after taking more of it away.
Anyhow the fact checks are starting. Here is one from Associated Press:
FACT CHECK: Obama and the 'hatchet' job
http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/fact-check…
What an odd thing to say just given your attack on democratic moderates.
“LOL, no its not the progressives that are too extreme its those darned Democratic moderates who are joining with the republicans against their own party that are the extremists!”
Considering they united with republicans to remove aspects of the bill that were popular, I think they actually are apart from the mainstream.
You seem to be of the opinion that if left-wing democrats like something, it's by default scary.
Oh, and republicans are being pretty extreme. If you think their opposition and absolute recalcitrance is justified, precedented or ideologically centrist, you have to be crazy.
Leonidas your arguing points are silly.
You want to lower taxes to the point of having no government at all. None of what you want will solve any of America's social problems that other socio-economic models have already solved by any measure of comparison. You advocate the “right to own” above the inalienable rights to life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all the rest of our people that are not “rich”.
Large segments of our population are under educated and our nation is way behind in education by comparison with the world in general. How long do you think we can possibly remain a leader or even a relevant nation with stupid people?
We are the ONLY modern country without universal healthcare. Why?
We allow giant business moguls to literally control our government supposedly of the people. Why?
We have a growing ecological problem that threatens our overall prosperity if not our very existence and you simply choose to ignore it.
We are sending our business overseas to our detriment which is destroying American prosperity. Should we be taxing those imports to regain some of our prosperity back? Do you want to give it ALL away to foreign powers?
What do you mean eliminate regulation? You want to eliminate laws that protect our people from corporate abuse as an answer to creating more jobs? Are you nuts? How many more jobs will turning a business into a pack of thieves create? What, you think corporations will act ethically just because Christianity is the majority religion in America or is there something else besides law that you are referring to that will protect our people?
You see, you are full of crapola. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Dear Father Time, the owner of the blog adheres to newspaper standards, and set the bar for that. The TMV commenters' rules are written accordingly. Like I said, we encourage vigorous debate within the commenters' rules. Thanks for your cooperation.
It was a great and eloquent speech, but Obama's M.O. has been to over-promise and under-deliver, and I don't see that changing. He will get significant opposition from his own party on some proposals besides the continuing opposition from the GOP.
I didn't hear much that will change the jobs situation, The proposal to drop capital gains taxes for small businesses is a red herring since most small businesses don't have much if any capital gains.
Father,
In another thread where you made the same claim about the rich not paying their share, I posted soe data from the CBO. Did you look at it? Do you care about data?
The share of federal taxes paid by the top 20% of filers has grown about 10 percentage points in the last 25 years. The rich by that definition are paying more of their share now than in the past. The same trend holds with the top 10, 5, and 1 percent.
If you have data (not an opinion) that shows something different, please feel free to post it.
Here is the link again
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax…
It's clear from comments here that many people are deeply entrenched in their views and have no intention of being swayed by facts, the record, the realities we face, or massive evidence of the degree to which partisan pettiness and denial has overtaken both our government and the citizens. I fully expect the scapegoating of the president to continue while his opposition continues to do nothing but complain. How could one speech, no matter how substantial or eloquent, change a mindset that has so thoroughly indocrinated itself for so long?
It's clear from comments here that people are deeply entrenched in their views
Are you exempting yourself from that, JSpencer?
Ah, wonderful, cute pedantry.
Hehe, JSpencer are you an Obama speechwriter?
That was very like him last night. It's clear that everyone else is entrenched and unreasonable and this should stop. I don't think anyone expected one speech to change minds, particularly a SOTU speech which (as is almost always the case) is long on rhetoric and short on policy specifics.
To solve the fiscal problems of the country, all sides would need to give beyond what they think is reasonable. Leadership, in such a situation, requires either proposing a solution that is concrete or taking the first step to give up something in which you believe that is is necessary part of the solution. Last night, the President did neither, nor has he done so in his first year in office.
Let me tell you what a different speech might have looked like. The President could have said the following…
“Fellow citizens, we are caught in a great trap, both economic and political. On the economic side, the government over many years has created a situation where the country will eventually bankrupt itself. I am not here to cast aspersion on the past or to attempt to assign blame. There is plenty of that to go around. People in Washington, responding to the American people, have tried to create a systems of low taxes and high services. My fellow Americans, I wasn't a math major but I can tell you that those numbers don't add up.
“To address this issue, shared sacrifices will be required, both on the part of American citizens and on the part of the political class here in Washington. Therefore I propose the following: First, that the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire as was the course of the law. I am fully cognizant that this will break the pledge I made during the campaign not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 but it is a necessary part of the overall solution. In addition, each American family must make a minimum contribution of $100 to the Federal government. We simply cannot have a system where people do not pay taxes at all. It creates mistrust and rancor among our citizens.
Second, we will implement a system on entitlements where all entitlements are means tested on both income and assets. Any American who is in the top 25% in terms of their income or their wealth will no longer be able to receive social security, medicare, or any other payment from the Federal government. At the same time, we will end all forms of “corporate welfare”. It is not the place of the government of the United States to make decisions about which companies will succeed and which will fail and in addition, this costs us hundreds of billions of dollars.
“Third, we will accelerate the timeline by which we reduce our commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever the merits of these situations, they are optional from the standpoint of the US government and, in the current environment, we cannot afford them.
“Finally, we will freeze all other elements of the government budget and hold the overall budget for these items to zero growth until such time as these policy elements have created a balanced budget. I do not yet know how long this will take but we must persevere until this happens.
“Now, there are many who will say (and I agree) that we cannot take such measures in the middle of a recession. I therefore will call for a bill that provides my administration the power to implement the whole package of reforms at the point we decide the economy is sufficiently stable to support them all but no later than January 1, 2012.
“I recognize that each of you in this chamber and in our country is deeply opposed to some of what I have said and deeply supportive of some of it. That, my fellow Americans is the essence of what we must do. We must all sacrifice our deeply held beliefs to put our nation on a sound economic footing and we must do it together.”
“I thank you for your attention and I salute you for your shared sacrifice. God bless you and God bless the United States of America.”
Now that would have been the speech of a leader and a good starting point for a discussion that could actually solve our most pressing fiscal problems.
still far left of what most Independents want in their government.”
Good evaluation. He still doesn't get it. Nicely presented BS.
Wow, I am really impressed.
Why don't you run for President, since you think you've got it all figured out, buddy?
Maybe you could even be the quarterback in next Sunday's superbowl!
After all, you're already an armchair quarterback.
Vera,
I didn't say I had it all figured out. In fact, I haven't run the numbers on what I suggested but I will.
If you disagree in substance, it would be good to hear it. If you just want to personally attack, I can't stop you.
BTW, I would never want to be President. It's a losing value proposition for me. I don't like being constantly attacked (despite the fact I post on blogs) and I don't like being in the spotlight.
However, I do love a difficult challenge and our fiscal situation as a nation is a difficult challenge.
Of course referring to increases in taxation without referring to increases in income is meaningless.
I think it's pretty naive to think the right side of the aisle would have done anything but sit on their hands if Obama had given a different speech. They believe their own propaganda far too much for that. I hope this eventually changes but it sure isn't going to happen in this political climate and 1 year into a democrat president's term.
Excellent link Jim – for those who are interested in facts and history that is. From the article:
Completely true Jim. So this table from the CBO refers to changes in tax rates which would reflect changes in income. As you can see tax rates are declining for all segments of the population but declining most rapidly at the bottom of the income distribution.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax…
As an example, from 1980 (pre-Reagan) to 2006 (post-Bush tax cuts) the effective tax rates by quintile from bottom to top went from 7.7, 14.1, 18.7, 21.5, 27.3 in 1980 to 4.3, 10.2, 14.2, 17.6, 25.8 in 2006. As you can see all rates are declining but in both absolute and percentage terms the decline is least steep at the top of the distribution. Please note that these data include all forms of federal taxation (both income and payroll taxes).
Regardless of how you want to look at the funding of the government, the issue we have is not a negative change in the way the burden is distributed.
I would have liked to see those tables go back further than 79.
Unfortunately those actions are going to require the cooperation of both parties if they are going to be effective, and despite appeals to bipartisanship I don't really expect republicans to step up to the plate. Given their history does anyone really think they will?
That's the problem with being a moderate…no passion. Thank God the SOTU was not as bland and boring as this article.
2010-01-30 Was Obama offering a deal on Gays in the Military?
I thought it was odd during the State of the Union address that after lot of talk about “lets govern together” with the Republicans, Obama turned around 180 degrees and came out strongly for gays in the military. Now I think that he was offering this deal to buy a few more votes for health care reform:
“Vote for Health Care Reform
and I will agree to keep gays out of the military for as long as I remain President.”
Obama would take heat from some fellow Democrats, but he has never been a strong gay advocate.
Enough Republicans might feel more strongly about that issue than about stopping health reform. And Obama was making it clear (with a threat) that this is the only alternative those Republicans have to keep the gays out.