The Right Speech at the Right Time: But is it Enough?

How you viewed the State of the Union depends, I think, on what you thought the President needed to do in the speech. The administration, and Democrats, have been on the ropes. Health care has lagged, the economy is puttering along, and two wars seem to have blurred into one long drone of stasis. So what did the President have to say about this collective exhaustion?

We got a date for troop withdrawal and it is August. We got a personal commitment to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We got (and we’ve seen in action) a renewed commitment to use the enforcement arm of the Department of Justice to enforce the civil rights protections already on the books. We got a stiff rebuke of the obstructionism of the GOP, and a reminder to the Supreme Court that corporate influence in the judicial branch should not, and would not, be tolerated.

We got a promise to expand Pell Grants and to repeal Bush tax cuts. We got a commitment to jobs and a commitment to infrastructure. We got an acknowledgment that the bank bailout was a bitter pill and that the days of that old medicine are over. And he did it in a way that took away the political advantage of imaging. By failing to stand up and cheer the bashing of the banks the GOP ceded ground on the populism brand and for good of for bad that matters. Given the long cold winter in Minnesota, the not-distant enough memory of the previous administration, this is a State of the Union I can get behind.

But we didn’t get a lot of details on those promises, which is where the hesitancy comes in. There was a commitment to nuclear energy and a mention of offshore drilling. And there is an inherent problem with linking governmental budgets and spending to familial budgets and spending. They are yings and yangs.

The President will probably take some hits from the left for insisting on reaching out to the right. It is frustrating when you have a majority and it feels like the entire legislative agenda is on life support. But the reality is the President governs for all Americans, and if you can take anything away from the “sentiment” of the recent elections, it appears to be that they agree with both the President and Republican challengers. So when we saw those moments of attempted bi-partisan I think it’s fair to say that this was as much an agenda speech as it was an election speech.

Rhetorically, it is also important for President Obama to start with jobs, financial reform, and investment strategy. This is important. Not only does it acknowledge the overall anxiety of the American public but it is the right start of priorities. Health care came later, as it should. That’s not to say we should abandon the bill. Not by any stretch. But we need to take a breath and pass the reforms we have and realign our expectations that passing this legislation is an end to the problem. It’s not. It’s the start of the solution.

For those still willing to hope, this is a good night. For those who have already given up, well, there wasn’t much in the speech to change your mind. For me, I’ll stay on the line for hope. That’s how the work gets done.

Read more: politics, president obama, state of the-union

photo courtesy of egadapparel via Flickr

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Edward C.

12:17AM PST on Feb 6, 2010

Face it, without emphasizing vigorous trust-busting, Obama has no chance to reform health care, the banks or much of anything else.

send a green star

Elaine D.

3:54PM PST on Feb 1, 2010

good story

gerlinde p.

11:54PM PST on Jan 30, 2010

i hope it sparks change in the stubborn gop, but i doubt it.

Robert S.

2:57PM PST on Jan 29, 2010

His speeches are all starting to sound the same to me. Someone needs to tell him that the campaign is over.

Ray L.

9:39AM PST on Jan 29, 2010

Yes, he's a wonderful orator, but, then again, talk's cheap. The Democrats are only "on the ropes" because they've walked over and leaned on them. They haven't pursued what they were elected for since Pelosi took impeachment "off the table." Too bad, especially since the Supreme Court decision has seriously undermined the democratic process. As Mussolini said, "Fascism is when industry and government walk hand in hand."

Eco M.

3:55AM PST on Jan 29, 2010

THANKS, FOR INFO

Abby K.

6:16PM PST on Jan 28, 2010

What concerns me here is the surfeit of blame. Political involvement is essential for every democracy, but we have some deep-rooted concerns in our own society that could be resolved by individual action. We say, "Our leaders are corrupt. They're not supporting the American dream." Please ask yourself: When was the last time I volunteered? Do I vote with my money or support the corporations responsible for our country's greed? Do I waste resources? Am I close-minded? Am I part of the problem? ... We aren't perfect. We make mistakes. But shelling out all the blame to Washington only delays our own action for a better world. Do your part!

Robert W.

5:59PM PST on Jan 28, 2010

Spark change????

Phil R.

3:54PM PST on Jan 28, 2010

Pres. Obama said all the right things. There was no mention of the NASA budget which kinda disappointed me 'cause i'm a space head. The rest: Healthcare, Don't-ask-don't tell, job creation, advanced student aid and environmental legislation, he's gonna need an iron will to accomplish. I'm not sure his escalation of military operations in Afghanistan will have the desired effect...or if Iraq will ever fully heal itself after our bumbling occupation. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how much support he can muster from Congress and the public (that's US folks!. :

Paul P.

1:33PM PST on Jan 28, 2010

Past Member, that might be true but we will never know unless the President truly extends the offer. For instance, Republicans would like an extension of the Bush tax cuts. The President could offer to discuss keeping a portion of these cuts, for instance the capital gains tax, long term dividend tax, and the elimination of the estate tax in exchange for something he wants. Because it has been a my way or the highway approach, Republicans can claim that they object to everything because they A)disagree and B)had no input.

I am an independent because neither party sticks to that little old dusty document called the US Constitution. That, and although the Republican party of 1994-1998, or so, was a limited gov't group, the spending of the Congress and Administration from 2000-2006 was out of control. Of course, it got even worse when the Democrats took over in 2006. Oh, and since I'm adamantly against government control of the womb, a party that wants anti-choice language in it's platform is not one that I would join.

But, if you threw in Independent to imply that I sound Republican, that's closer than me sounding like a Democrat. Believe it or not, if we made a list of those in Washington that I like, it would be more evenly divided than you might think. Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, and Schumer are not on the list...