Obama\u2019s State of the Union speech while delivered well was a triumph of symbolism and platitudes over substance, which was mirrored in the seating arrangements of the members of Congress.\u00a0 It may have been all nice, warm and fuzzy, but ultimately it was meaningless.\u00a0\u00a0 The seating arrangements were supposed to reflect the new civility and willingness to work together. Yet there is a reason that members of both parties don\u2019t just \u201cwork together to solve the nation\u2019s problems.\u201d It has nothing to do with them not getting along.<\/p>\n
The simple fact is that, except of a few hyper-partisan members, they all get along pretty well.\u00a0 The problem is not that they don\u2019t get along, or even that they don\u2019t work together, but that they don\u2019t agree on what should be done.\u00a0 These are not just partisan disagreements, but are in fact honest difference of opinion on what should be done.<\/p>\n
Most liberals really do think that a larger federal government will be able to make people\u2019s lives better; that the solution to the problems with schools is to be found in more federal spending on education;\u00a0 that the solution to the problems with health care is to be found in more federal control over health care, and for many this means a single payer system; that the solution to virtually every problem be it energy, the environment, failing inner cities, or unemployment, is to be found in more federal control and spending.\u00a0\u00a0 To pay for this they believe that taxes on the rich are too low, and that the rich should pay more.<\/p>\n
Most conservatives, on the other hand,\u00a0 really do think that the federal government is already too large and that it is either causing or exacerbating these very same problems; that the solution to the problem with schools is to be found in less government control and more choice for parents;\u00a0 that the solution to the problems with health care is to be found in more choice and competition that would allow for innovation; the solution to virtually every problem be it energy, the environment, failing inner cities, or unemployment, is to be found in less federal control and spending, and more freedom and competition.\u00a0 They believe the taxes are already too high and that, along with burdensome regulation are stifling the economy.<\/p>\n
When one side believes that government must increase to solve these problems and the other believes that government is already too big and must decrease to solve these problems what is the middle ground?\u00a0 There is none. The closest is perhaps Obama\u2019s call in his speech for a budget freeze, for government to remain the same. But that is akin to no action rather than a solution. In addition just what does he mean by a budget freeze, when at the same time he is calling for increased \u201cinvestment\u201d in a whole range of areas i.e.,\u00a0 expanding federal spending?\u00a0 Does he really want to freeze, or to invest?<\/p>\n
This was the real problem with Obama\u2019s speech. While delivered well and each section for the most part sounded ok, as a whole it was a little incoherent, which was best summarized by his somewhat confusing reference to a sputnik moment, a single event that drastically changes everyone\u2019s perceptions. But just what single event does he see as his sputnik moment? His reference seemed to invoke a sputnik moment without a sputnik!<\/p>\n
In short his speech strove for great heights, but somewhat fell flat.\u00a0 He clearly intended this speech to be central to his attempt to redefine is presidency and gain control of the debate.\u00a0 But ultimately he failed.\u00a0 It was not a bad speech. In fact it was a pretty normal State of the Union speech, but it was not the speech he had hoped for.\u00a0 If the speech is remembered at all, it will likely be remembered more for the seating arrangements of Congress than for anything he said, with the possible exception of that confusing sputnik reference.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Obama\u2019s State of the Union speech while delivered well was a triumph of symbolism and platitudes over substance, which was mirrored in the seating arrangements of the members of Congress.\u00a0 It may have been all nice, warm and fuzzy, but ultimately it was meaningless.\u00a0\u00a0 The seating arrangements were supposed to reflect the new civility and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,12,13,14,20,24],"tags":[205,289,319,456,460,2003,677,791,934,1154,1159,1177,1199,1207,2015,1331],"class_list":["post-522","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conservative","category-domestic-policy","category-economy","category-education","category-health-care","category-liberal","tag-budget-freeze","tag-civility","tag-congress","tag-energy","tag-environment","tag-health-care","tag-inner-cities","tag-liberals","tag-obama","tag-schools","tag-seating","tag-single-payer","tag-sputnik-moment","tag-state-of-the-union","tag-taxes","tag-unemployment"],"yoast_head":"\n