Sunday, January 30, 2011

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.

2 comments:

  1. Awesome post Daniel! I'm glad you liked my Tetris analogy and your analysis regarding the efficiency and foresight that is required for the game and our nation was spot on. I also really liked your take on the "competition" with other nations. You have asked a very critical question that must be answered as the world becomes increasingly globalized: Do our claims of American exceptionalism have any serious place in the globalized world of the day? Great job, keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great Post Daniel. I also read the post by Stephen Walt a few weeks ago and felt a little uneasy with the statement that the State of the Union doesn't matter, because it does. I agree with Walt in the fact that actions are the most important aspect of policy, however, I think speeches and statements of intent are also important to focus our action in the future (like you said). I also enjoyed Nick's Tetris analogy and agree that we cannot hope to win in a race against the world. I also like your analysis of "winning the future" because I think that can be interpreted many different ways.

    Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete