Democracy

The State of the Union: Opening the Debate of 2012

I continue to be struck by the constancy of Barack Obama. His tactics shift and weave, but his overall principles and project are firmly rooted. In the State of the Union address, he revealed his core convictions, explained his policies and their consequences, and linked his accomplishments with his promises.

Obama is a centrist, working to define common sense, working to move the center left, as I have earlier argued. In his speech last night, he focused on fairness and the viability of the American dream. He argued for the way the government can support economic development and the interests of the vast majority of the American public. Though he did not use the language of Occupy Wall Street, his focus on fairness was clearly supported by the fruits of the social movement’s labors. And the principled debate before the American people in the coming election was illuminated, as Obama argued for his side: a “smarter more effective government” versus limited government, the Republican ideal.

The speech was elegantly crafted and delivered, something that is now expected from Obama and therefore doesn’t impress and is not really news. But the fine form delivered a well rounded argument.

He opened and closed with a call for common purpose, exemplified by the military and its virtues, as he highlighted major milestones in foreign affairs: the end of the war in Iraq and the killing of Osama Bin Laden. A move that makes me uncomfortable, though I understand that it works well.

The opening:

“Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq.  Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought — and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world.  (Applause.)  For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.  (Applause.)  For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.  (Applause.)  Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated.  The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces.  At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations.  They’re not consumed with personal ambition.  They don’t obsess over their differences.  They focus on the mission at hand.  They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.  (Applause.)  Think about the America within our reach:  A country that leads the world in educating its people.  An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs.  A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world.  An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.”

The closing:

“One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden.  On it are each of their names.  Some may be Democrats.  Some may be Republicans.  But that doesn’t matter.  Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates — a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary — and Hillary Clinton — a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission.  No one thought about politics.  No one thought about themselves.  One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission.  It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job — the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs.  More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other — because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s somebody behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America.  Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes.  No one built this country on their own.  This nation is great because we built it together.  This nation is great because we worked as a team.  This nation is great because we get each other’s backs.  And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard.”

And in between, he identified the common good as he and his party define it:

“…the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive.  No challenge is more urgent.  No debate is more important.  We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.  (Applause.)  What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values.  And we have to reclaim them.”

He spoke about many of specific accomplishments, a highpoint: saving the auto industry. He also spoke about specific proposals: the payroll tax extension, tax code reform, the promotion of American exports, a trade enforcement unit, along with a financial crimes unit. Education also was a major theme: job training, turning community colleges into “community career centers,” school reform, increase student aid for college, controlling the cost of higher education. Along the way he included passing references to advancements provided by healthcare reform, the importance of immigration reform, public funding of research, and the reform of Senate rules.

His resoluteness was on full and, in my judgment, convincing display.

“Let’s never forget:  Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same.  It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom.  No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts…

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want.  But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes?  Most Americans would call that common sense…

[A]nyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.  (Applause.)”

Clearly it was a partisan speech, meeting the Republicans head on, and implicitly specifically Mitt Romney on tax rates. But it is also a challenge to his critics on the left and his less than enthusiastic supporters. He still wants to go beyond partisanship. He supports not only control of the market but also the market itself. He is trying to constitute a new centrist position. One can question whether his more sharply drawn commitments are just an election year tactic. He did name fairness as the central problem of our time, his version of fighting for the 99%. This will satisfy some in OWS, but not others.

As I asserted in the opening of this post, and as I tried to reveal in my earlier posts on Obama working with Democrats, with Republicans and against Republicans, I think that we observe only changed tactics and not commitments. I also would suggest that his earlier accomplishments, specifically doing the possible if not the ideal in supporting a devastated economy and significantly reforming the American healthcare system, lend authority to his present promise. He clearly presented his side of the great debate that will be the election of 2012.

2 comments to The State of the Union: Opening the Debate of 2012

  • Darini Nicholas

    Jeff, I agree with you that Obama’s speech “was elegantly crafted and delivered” and that he did indeed focus on fairness, but might I add that it was really a very good campaign speech! Whether his strategies really hold weight will have to stand the test of time. I did watch it live streaming last evening, since it was a “media event” but also because there’s so much at stake. I appreciate your analysis in how you broke it down to show O’s centrist agenda. This political theatre wouldn’t have been even half as interesting if not for OWS, and we are only seeing its impact just beginning to unfurl…

  • Scott

    One thing that struck me about Obama’s speech is the rhetoric he used to justify his spending programs. While referring to it as “investing” rather than “spending” he consistently framed this in terms of national greatness, while always looking out for #1 be it education or clean energy technology. You think such a nationalist tone would appeal to Republicans, yet they think of things in terms of Biblical morality and free-market ideology, a strange brew to be sure. As long as we hold to these principles, America will always be God’s favorite country. (God evidently is also against raising taxes on the rich.)

    And think the phrase “No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts…” is actually as conservative as it gets, but I think it could appeal to some Liberal as well. Yet I worry about Obama’s ability (or resoluteness) to follow through on such an ideal. Remember, we’ve heard much of this before. It’s really up to us to hold him to his word.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>