Larison on SOTU
Rod Dreher January 25th, 2012
Daniel Larison watched the State of the Union address and the GOP response, so I didn’t have to. His remarks here. I quit watching SOTU speeches a few years ago, because they’re always a snore. Sounds like I missed exactly nothing. According to Daniel, Obama was dull when he wasn’t offensive, and Mitch Daniels’s response was just dull.
Did you see either speech? What did you think?
I thought it sounded familiar:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/havent-we-heard_618462.html
If it’s dull, then that’s just too #*%#@ bad. There are plenty of really dull things that have to be done.
These things generally don’t have long-term effects, but for now at least the speech was a strong winner for Obama politically. See below for links to three different early poll results on the address, all extremely positive. Larison was not the intended audience:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/initial_polling_on_sotu_appear034983.php
Saw the last 10 minutes of the SOTU and about half of Daniel’s. Would echo larison. pretty typical political stuff wrapped in a “to be expected” humdrum wrapper.
Basically, same old, same old.
“An overwhelming majority of Americans approved of the overall message in President Obama’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, according to a CBS News poll of speech watchers.
According to the poll, which was conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the president’s address, 91 percent of those who watched the speech approved of the proposals Mr. Obama put forth during his remarks. Only nine percent disapproved.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029581-503544.html
There are plenty of really dull things that have to be done.
Says Zathras, above. So I have to watch the SOTU? Or what? I figured out 9 or 10 years ago–entirely too late–that SOTU’s are uniformly boring and non-substantive. An informed citizen will learn almost nothing from them, but will have wasted two more hours of his life in front of the boob tube. Partisan, rhetorical grandstanding.
It doesn’t help that I find Obama’s oratory in particular to be profoundly boring.
Well, considering that the only people watching the speech were probably Obamanoids, it would make sense that they would approve it.
A couple of interesting aspects to the speech. It was anti-wonky — Obama seemingly deliberately made statements he did not buttress with facts or white papers (for instance, that Wall Street deregulation enabled the financial crisis). Yet the President did allude pointedly to “facts,” which the GOP has been ignoring for several years (most recently, by proposing vast tax cuts while hammering the Democrats for raising the debt limit). This is part of being presidential: Knowing that you are trusted enough to dispense with the footnotes.
Obama has attained that threshold, which gives him a big advantage in public opinion face-offs with less trusted politicians, such as Newt Gingrich and perhaps Mitt Romney too. As part of this establishing trust agenda, perhaps, the President did make some interesting concessions to reality, such as mentioning that a climate change measure could not pass the Congress. I didn’t detect any blame in this statement. Although Obama clearly was making political points, this was not a good guys/bad guys speech. .
Tone was dull (little inspiration and few attack lines) but straightforward. The message was: You can trust me. I make sense. I’m not going to do or say something crazy.
Given the fur flying on the other side of the aisle, this was refreshing — and calming.
And Mitch Daniels’ GOP response also nodded towards fairness issues and benefit cutbacks and even, arguably, tax hikes on the rich, as part of a debt-reduction effort.
Seemed as if both sides were trying to put the hideous battle over the debt ceiling in August behind them. No one came out of that one looking good. No one.
Read the transcript this morning. Aside from the blatant misinformation about the auto industry (taking credit for Ford’s success when they didn’t take bailout money), I think the speech writers should be given awards for making such bad policy decisions sound like steps forward. That or imprisoned for false advertising.
I didn’t watch it either, I was on Amtrak somewhere in upstate New York. But, I didn’t expect anything wildly different, and I did expect it would be something I more or less approve of. Good to know about the overwhelmingly positive public response.
I think people are starting to realize that Obama as Chump Mediocrity isn’t an act…
I turned in on when the President was proposing federal aid to Community Colleges and turned it of. Now, he is right about the place of non-Bachelors, non-four year technical education. And we are now rich enough that we can probably have our 18-20 year olds ‘learn’ some technical skills, and maybe some more academics, and maybe have a couple of years of ‘fun’ like their academic track peers.
But really, should, you know, Communities be tending to, directing, and funding their Community Colleges.
For various technical reasons (a complaint with the webmaster has been lodged), I am currently unable to comment on Larison’s blog, but I’ll comment here. One objection to Obama’s speech which has been raised by several libertarian-leaning commenters, including both Larison and Andrew Sullivan, is Obama’s comparison of civilian government to military focus and discipline. Larison writes that:
Larison is correct in that civilian government is not–and should not–be like the military. In the military, or any hierarchical organization, you have a chain of command, and the lower ranks are charged with executing the orders of the generals or the CEO or whomever sits at the top. (I’ll ignore the various exceptions to this state of affairs, such as illegal orders, for purposes of this discussion). Democratic civilian governance doesn’t work that way, obviously–John Boehner is under no obligation whatsoever to do Obama’s bidding, any more than congressional Democrats had any duty to do what W wanted during the prior administration.
George Bush and many of his followers were (and still are), quite aggressive with playing the disloyalty card in dealing with domestic opposition, as Larison notes, and even today–several of the GOP candidates for President suggest (or hint strongly) that President Obama is disloyal to the United States, and do so on a regular basis.
The question, though, is the following: Is Obama going there? Is he starting to play the disloyalty card, after several years of excoriating Republicans for doing so?
Certainly, trying to cow the opposition into supporting your agenda is nothing new to politics; Obama (and W) would be foolish not to try it. And Obama has had to deal with far more obstructionist tactics from the GOP than Bush faced from the Democrats, not that the Dems were innocent of trying to throw wrenches in the works. Obama’s main thrust seems to be that some of the GOP tactics–including things like refusing to confirm ANY nominees to certain posts, or attempting to win policy concessions concessions by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, go beyond normal opposition. Indeed, the GOP’s refusal to support policies that they normally would support, suggest that they’ve beyond mere policy disagreement, into the realm of sabotage. I have a hard time faulting Obama for complaining about this.
There’s one other aspect of the loyalty angle, which Larison doesn’t cover, but other writers have–the trade-hawkishness of the speech. Many neoliberal and conservative critics (both Sullivan and Yglesias) have objected to Obama’s litany of tax deduction proposals designed to stimulate domestic production on policy grounds–objecting to anything that smacks of protectionism (Matt) or a more complicated and loophole-ridden tax code (Andrew). But Obama seemed to be suggesting that capitalists who move production overseas aren’t just being self-motivated (or greedy if you prefer)…but disloyal. He didn’t come out and say it point blank, of course, but I’m certain many progressives would like to see the national discourse nudged in that direction, after a decade or more of public denunciations of “buy America” campaigns as little more than xenophobic union foolishness.
Josh,
Obama didn’t really take credit for Ford’s success, but pointed out that Ford was hiring (hey hey! jobs!), and that Detroit had turned around generally. Here’s the text:
“On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.”
That’s not a model of clarity, I admit, but it’s making the point that Romney’s “let them die” approach was the wrong one.
seem like the kind of stuff everyone could at least in principle agree on – promoting American manufacturing and innovation, getting Americans up to speed re: technical expertise, relying on American values of hard work etc and – maybe this is a problem for some – tax hikes on the wealthy. Discovering that say Romney pays 15% on millions while the average American pay 28% on considerably less is going to make this sound more equitable.
I usually watch – whoever the president is – sort of see it as a civic duty.
Park Hyun:
Fair point, but you’re forgetting–and Obama’s strategically forgetting–that the GM + Chrysler bailout happened under Bush’s waning watch. In other words, Obama is taking credit for something he didn’t do.
Unsurprising in the world of partisan politics, of course, but he has few other generally acknowledged successes to cite: the bailout was a flop, and so far his healthcare “reform” has been as well.
Park Hyun,
The passage that you quote very obviously insinuates that Ford was part of the bailout (or “help”). Someone who did not already know that Ford declined the money would not realize that from what the President said. Moreoever, what is this stuff about the “entire industry” adding jobs? Does that include the non-union, not bailed-out automakers? If so, wouldn’t that undercut the President’s contention that the bailout saved “our auto industry”?
That poll is from 2011–several blogs made that mistake.
I thought it and Daniels response were both fine. Disagreements with each on some points. Of course.
But I can’t get behind not watching just because it ain’t Grand Theft Auto or whatever. We need, as a society, to have these moments of common attention and discussion, where we’re all doing the same thing at the same time. The same, national, important, thing.
Off topic, but, btw, can we get a law passed that prevents this early-voting nonsense? I mean, Florida voters have already voted in the primary long ago, before all the stuff that’s been going down even happened. That’s messed up. Bad, bad, bad.
John Haas: I’m all about common political liturgies and the like, but the SOTU just doesn’t seem to cut it. Why do I need to throw away two hours of my life to watch a President indulge in more empty platitudes and partisan rhetoric, interrupted by pointless applause, and followed by more empty platitudes and empty rhetoric from the out-party?
The SOTU used to be a letter rather grudgingly sent to Congress as an actual report on the state of the Republic over which the President presided. It was not a mass media spectacle. It was not deemed a “duty” to which every “responsible” and “informed” citizen must attend. And it doesn’t need to be now.
Voting might fit your qualifications. Even though your vote is statistically nugatory and you are presented with no meaningful choices in an average election, the act of getting off your rump with other concerned Americans to (pretend to) exercise some kind of influence on the functioning of the Republic (which is no longer a republic) is more substantive and meaningful than remaining on said rump in front of the television to watch a politico drone on and on rehashing stale tropes.
I saw one SOTU by Bush, because my cousin had it on when I was visiting. Other than that I havem’t watched one since my father passed (he always watched them). If anything earth–shaking ever gets said in one I’ll just have to catch the You-tube replay.
@Rob: “Why do I need to throw away two hours of my life to watch a President indulge in more empty platitudes and partisan rhetoric, interrupted by pointless applause, and followed by more empty platitudes and empty rhetoric from the out-party?”
First, I don’t consider two hours to be a major time investment that requires a lot of hand-wringing. It’s two hours. Less time than it takes to suffer through “Tree of Life.” And easily as thrilling.
Second, perhaps we the American people get the SOTUs we deserve, in part because we’re just not willing to put in the time.
Rob, “Fair point, but you’re forgetting–and Obama’s strategically forgetting–that the GM + Chrysler bailout happened under Bush’s waning watch. In other words, Obama is taking credit for something he didn’t do.”
I find this comment hilarious. It amazes me (and I am not accusing you of this), that so many on the right want to blame Obama for numerous things that Bush did, until they could be seen as successful, and then you here “Bush did it!”. I actually know people in my family and friend circle who spent 2 years talking about “government Motors, and accused Obama of bailing out the UAW to get votes, but now the GM is functioning again as a proper company, they talk about the brilliance of Bush to save so many manufacturing jobs, and worse they won’t even acknowledge their previous hatred of the idea.
And yes, they all think Gingrich would be a great President. lol!
Then there is Mitt Romney, who said, let it go broke, but when the auto industry survived, proclaimed that Obama used Romney’s idea to get the job done.
Of the little bit I caught I thought Obama actually had some good ideas (because they were ideas I have had before). He spoke of raising taxes on corporations that close their domestic manufacturing centers here in the U.S. and send them overseas and lowering the corporate tax on those that keep their manufacturing here in America. I think its a good start, but he’ll never go through with it. With all his community organizer B.S. he’s still a Goldman Sach’s man who like whatever Republican challenger he will face will have passed the pro-Wall Street litmus test. That’s why Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan will never become President of the United States.