President Barack Obama delivers the State of the Union address on Jan. 24, 2012. Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was given in a context that underscored that the Republicans have no monopoly on resurrection. As the fortunes of Republican candidates have routinely skated to the precipice and back, so too has the president courted his political demise.
Written off only a few months ago by pundits and not a few voters, Obama’s prospects have been enhanced by several recent developments, including the killing of Sept. 11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden — an event Republican Mitch Daniels respectfully acknowledged in the Republican rebuttal to the state of the union. President Obama skillfully used this accomplishment at the beginning and end of his speech, not just to applaud our military but also as a nationally unifying moment that could teach us something about fighting our economic challenges.
Indeed, the economy is one other area where the president has experienced some gains, despite overall weakness and a recovery far short of that promised in more lofty previous State of the Union addresses. Unemployment is declining amid rising consumer confidence and reduced levels of household debt.
The other source of hope for the president’s prospects was the fortuitously timed fat pitch offered by the disclosure of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s tax returns, revealing a multimillion-dollar income taxed at less than half what many Americans pay.
Obama teed off on the wealth issue in the signature proposal of his speech. Calling for all Americans to pay their “fair share,” he proposed a minimum tax for millionaires. Perhaps coincidentally, but probably not, the proposal (30 percent) would double the taxes Romney was revealed to have paid in his just-released tax returns.
Timing is everything and, certainly helped by the release of Romney’s tax returns, now may be the time to call for a heightened tax on the rich as part of what Obama terms a “blueprint for an economy built to last.” The president has seen his approval ratings rise, if glacially, since he began sounding his populist message, reprising themes of Theodore Roosevelt in his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, in early December. This wasn’t necessarily the president’s ideal strategy, but with only incremental improvement in the economy and his approval ratings, it was the only realistic way forward.
Regarding the “realistic,” the president’s address identified plans for the future without the benefit of the political resources for follow-through, owing to obstacles in Congress and the harsh reality of our national debt. In the past, Obama offered grand, transformative prescriptions, but, in the current political environment, he was left to offer narrow objectives to be achieved through micro-policies. Instead of comprehensive reforms or expensive programs, he promoted tax incentives to: hire Americans, particularly veterans; stimulate American manufacturing; and, among other goals, retrain workers and promote innovation. He asked states to keep tuition down and reform education without the obvious power to make any of this happen. Still, he staked out the terrain he wants to occupy in the upcoming election: an economy where everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does his fair share.
This unifying theme of “fairness for all” excoriates the undertaxed and over-protected actors in our economy: “no bailouts, no handouts and no cop-outs” and smart government regulation to prevent the bad behavior that created the mess he inherited. Obama also seized upon another tide that has lifted his boat — the record low approval ratings for Congress — asserting that he will fight any obstruction with action while challenging lawmakers to produce bills to reform themselves.
The Republican rebuttal without bombast (and perhaps some buyer’s remorse)
The job of rebutting Obama was left to Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana. This role is commonly reserved for a rising star in the Republican Party, but in this instance it was also someone who bowed out of running for president. This is an enviable opportunity for exposure but, in the context of GOP nomination politics this year, it probably served to remind many frustrated Republicans of a painfully lost opportunity.
Like all such rebuttals, it was presented in an empty room without the pomp and spectacle afforded presidents. It was, nonetheless, a powerful counterpoint to Obama, offered without the bombast that has been characteristic of Republican candidates in the political cycle so far.
Where Obama proclaimed “America is back” with a promising future founded on sound government intervention, Daniels pointed out that while the president didn’t create the economic crisis, he was elected to fix it and had instead made it worse. Citing an array of statistics to back this point, he emphasized the national debt as a looming threat and one that had grown perilously during the Obama administration.
An approach to recovery that relies on, and expands, government not only won’t work, he said, but is likely to put us in the same position as Greece, Spain and other teetering European economies.
Daniels asserted the foundations to Obama’s approach are based in class warfare, “to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others.” Rather than taxing the rich, or a continued commitment to government intervention, he called for a pro-jobs, pro-economic growth strategy before we “drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt.” Americans, he argued, needed to be served, and not supervised, by its government.
The same goals, different means, different threats
Comparing the two speeches, they both pointed to a crisis of monumental proportions and aimed for the restoration of American economic health. The president highlighted an upward trend while warning of a slip back into the abyss. He made little mention of the national debt while underscoring the important role of government for an “America built to last.”
Daniels emphasized the deficiencies of the president’s approach, specifically its contribution to the national debt, which he viewed as threatening America’s economic future. That course, he said, is hastening our arrival in that abyss: “Time is running out.”
As the economy is the primary concern of American voters, look for two dominant themes in the 2012 election: Continue the groundwork for prosperity (according to the Democrats), or ignore the impending catastrophe by committing to the current course (according to the Republicans).
Guest blogger Paul Brace is the Clarence L. Carter Professor of Political Science at Rice University. He is co-author of “Follow the Leader: Opinion Polls and the Modern Presidents,” author of “State Government and Economic Performance” and co-editor of “The Presidency in American Politics” and “American State and Local Politics.” He has published research in the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Political Research Quarterly, Polity, Social Science Quarterly, American Politics Quarterly, Legislative Studies Quarterly and other journals.