Why the State of the Union speech matters

On Tuesday afternoon, hours before President Obama delivered his second State of the Union address, Stephen Walt wrote on his blog for ForeignPolicy.com a post entitled "Why the State of the Union Speech doesn't matter".  Walt argues that neither the vitriolic rhetoric of politics nor the substance of policy debates will be changed by what Obama said last night.  He writes: "What matters isn't what Obama says tonight, but what he and his advisors, and the Congress ultimately do." 

While I find Walt's argument persuasive, that Obama's greatest achievements have come through intricate, even behind-the-scenes planning and deal-making than through lofty rhetoric, Walt's thesis still gives me pause.  For, indeed, Obama's words last night were both decisive and carefully chosen - and they will impact the way we frame our discussion of America's greatest issues going forward. 

So, let's take a look:

Obama's main theme throughout the speech was competitiveness, that America must "win" to succeed.  Indeed, he used the phrase "winning the future" numerous times in the speech.  This message served to create a sense of unity for all Americans through these tough times, that Americans can come together to confront the troubles of today for a better tomorrow.

This message reminded me of FDR's First Inaugural, in which he declared a "war against the emergency" - the emergency being the Great Depression.  But America is not in nearly the same state as it was in 1933, and Obama's use of winning certainly adds a more positive spin than war-like language.  Still, the goal is the same: to unite the country against a common enemy, be it the Great Depression or the slow emergence from the Great Recession, and to come out on top.  And Obama outlines the tools we need to win, including bipartisanship, innovation, education, and government involvement where appropriate.  In this way, he creates his own definition of winning, making it both appealing and all-inclusive enough to attract most Americans and assure that his policies triumph over those of his opponents.

But, as I listened to Obama's calls for winning the future, I can't help but wonder whom or what we are trying to beat.  Are we merely trying to defeat our nation's economic woes?  Or does Obama's language represent a desire to maintain economic advantages over emerging economies such as India and China?  Should we still be speaking in these terms when our nation's prosperity - and solubility -  is increasingly tied to that of these other countries?  Do our claims of American exceptionalism have any serious place in the globalized world of the day?

Paul Krugman wrote a column last week, in preparation for the SOTU, about the "Competition Myth" that pervades Obama's recent speeches and policies.  To view our nation as "America, Inc.," as Krugman puts it, may appeal to our capitalist values, but a nation is not a business.  If it were, then unemployment would mean efficiency and profit, and social welfare programs would only hinder growth.  Other countries would merely be competitors to undercut, not possible allies in an increasingly complex world.

Instead, I hope that Obama's message of competitiveness will be applied in a similar fashion to FDR's war on the emergency, with the government taking an active role in reviving the economy and providing for the shared prosperity of the entire nation.  As a classmate of mine, Nick, put it in a recent blog post, perhaps the game we are trying to win is one like Tetris, a one-player game where efficiency and foresight prevails.  I, and Krugman, I imagine, would prefer this game.

Either way, this paradigm of competitiveness will have an influence on Obama's policies and actions, and those of the people around him, for at least the rest of his term.  If there's one thing we can take from this phrase of winning the future, it is that we can not take the future for granted, that we must work for the goal of keeping America great.  Maybe it doesn't mean beating anyone else, but it certainly will require teamwork and sacrifice.  That was Obama's strongest message in this year's SOTU.

Please let me know what you thought about his speech and about my post.

Book Review: Animal Farm

A few days ago, in passing through the occasional boredom of this year's relaxing winter break, I picked up a thin book with a white cover and decided to read it.  Little did I know that George Orwell's Animal Farm would be both an enriching piece of classic literature and the perfect book for me to share with you in this first post of 2011.

George Orwell (actually the pen name of Eric Blair), a British political author, wrote Animal Farm in England in 1943 and '44, and it was published in August 1945.  Click here for a summary of the book.  Animal Farm is at its core a political commentary, a scathing critique of Soviet Russia delivered through the allegorical story of farm animals.  The parallels are clear.  Major, the sagacious, idealistic and revolutionary boar represents V.I. Lenin; Napoleon and Snowball, the two pigs vying for power after his death, represent Stalin and Trotsky, respectively.  The transformation from an egalitarian community of farm animals to the tyrannical rule of Napoleon under the new mantra, "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others," takes place right under the noses of the very animals that revolted against their human owner's tyranny.  The striking parallels established in the characters are impossible to miss, especially for an educated audience in the mid-20th century, and the tragic outcome thus makes the reader view more critically the Soviet regime that was so revered during WWII. 

But for readers today, what is most frightening about this story is not the cruelty of Soviet communism, but rather the way in which it came about.  Although the revolutionary animals inscribe Seven Commandments on the barn house enumerating the values of old Major, only some of the animals can read them.  For those who can't read and aren't clever enough to memorize them, the Commandments are simplified into one phrase: "Four legs good, two legs bad."  This simplification is first in a string of alienations done by Napoleon and the other pigs to twist the original doctrine of Animalism to their own self-serving interests.  Indeed, Napoleon and the other pigs use their ability to read, write, and negotiate with humans to assert intellectual superiority over the other animals, thereby justifying any inequality and blinding the animals to this injustice.  The disempowerment of the "lower animals", as they become called, through the manipulation of political ideologies and what amounts to brainwashing by their rulers shows the dangerous power of inflated ideologies to destroy even our most deeply held values.  Ultimately, the distinction between the pigs and humans disappears, and the animal revolution ends before the very animals who fought for the revolution know it.

So, as we enter this New Year, one in which our government will likely be even more divided than before, our legislators, and all Americans, must make the choice between holding steadfast to ideology and compromising some positions in order to address our numerous challenges.  Just as Orwell saw the distinction between the socialism in which he believed and the Soviet perversion of that ideology, we Americans mustn't blind ourselves to the intricacies of political thought.  And as the Seven Commandments of Animalism became reduced to a simplistic phrase, we must be wary of politicians and ideologues who transform complex issues into simple slogans and sound bites.  Indeed, that is what makes American democracy different from Animal, or Soviet, tyranny.  

This, I believe, is Orwell's message to his readers, and is the reason Animal Farm is as relevant today as it was 65 years ago.