According to the White House blog, I was one of almost 1.3 million people who watched President Obama speak to our nation’s leaders and the American people in his State of the Union address on Jan. 27. Despite the atypical length of the speech – approximately 1 hour and 10 minutes – watching it firsthand made me feel empowered and informed as a citizen.
Since I received the information directly from President Obama, the primary source, I could interpret the speech from my perspective. Reporters and bloggers sift through the speech and select what they believe are key parts. However, what may be the most important issue to one person may not be as important to another.
For example, The Daily Tar Heel reported that Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt tweeted about Obama’s goal to eliminate the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy for homosexuals who wish to serve in the military. At the same time, Laura Rozen, a blogger for POLITICO, focused on the president's little emphasis on foreign policy.
Although specific issues, such as the proposed freeze on non-defense spending, were consistently topics of controversy among analysts and government officials, their perspectives on the issue were quite different. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who delivered the official Republican response to the address, said that the freeze will not be enough to alleviate economic hardships – that instead government needs to be limited further. Meanwhile, Paul Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times, called the freeze a “dumb policy idea.”
In addition, analysts and bloggers often focus on the tone and delivery of the speech more than the content. Michael Crowley, a blogger for The New Republic, wrote that Obama gave a “strong, fluid speech” with “some memorable, lighthearted moments.” On the converse, Jennifer Donahue, a political analyst refererenced in a CNN article, noted that the speech was “underwhelming” and lacked middle ground.
Many of the specifics of the speech, such as the timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq and the executive order to create a Bipartisan Fiscal Commission, were omitted from articles and blogs more focused on the themes of the speech or what Obama was missing. Even though some of the specific promises may seem challenging or unrealistic to critics (e.g. doubling the nation's exports in the next five years), Americans should still be aware that these proposals are being considered.
Witnessing the atmosphere of the chamber both added and detracted from the speech’s impact. Although the applause delayed the speech, it gave some indication of how much support each issue has among members of Congress. For example, there was less applause for the spending freeze than for other issues, such as clean energy and education reform.
The reactions of specific individuals and groups to Obama’s remarks were intriguing. The president’s critique of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was defied by Justice Alito. Also, the Joint Chiefs of Staff met Obama’s proposal to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with stoicism.
At the same time, the expressions of Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi frequently detracted from the speech, attracting my attention toward them and away from the president. Unlike the other individuals who were temporarily caught on camera, Biden and Pelosi were conscious of their presence onscreen. As a result, their response to Obama’s comments were contrived. At best, Biden’s constant nodding and Pelosi’s disappearing and reemerging smile were entertaining.
I also witnessed the occasional tension in the chamber during the speech and Obama’s forced use of sarcasm. When he did not receive a positive response to the spending freeze proposal, Obama noted that the freeze would not go into effect until next year when employment conditions have improved. He then awkwardly joked, "That's how budgeting works." He also called out critics of global warming, stating "I know there are those that disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence" for climate change. Finally, he continually referred back to the faults of the Bush administration, remarking that the deficit and war existed before he "walked in the door." After noting all the problems he inherited, he said that he was "just stating the facts." These moments showed Obama's struggle to gain support from both the Republicans as well as his own party.
Although the speech itself is my first choice as a source for information about the State of the Union, newspaper articles and blogs do have several benefits and are great supplements to the address. Reporters compile information about relevant current events and put the speech in political context. The "State of the Union: Reactions, Analysis of Obama's 2010 Address" on The Huffington Post's Web site provides multiple comments from political experts who look at Obama's speech through the lense of his actions over the past year.
Political analysts also have a more comprehensive idea of what to expect. An article on FOXNews.com, "Obama to Push Jobs, Education Spending in State of the Union Address," outlined Obama's goals, including an increase in educational spending, an increase in jobs and a persistent push for healthcare reform.
Also, reporters can compare the speech to speeches by past presidents in comparable political situations. The News and Observer's article, "Obama channels Ronald Reagan: 'Stay the course,'" likens Obama's address to Ronald Reagan's speech in 1982, which also encouraged citizens to have faith in his policies despite hard times. (The president may have noticed this similarity -- he said that he was embracing the vision of Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy when he discussed the threat of nuclear weapons.)
Just as the intervening applause during the speech was grating at times, the personal attacks and ad hominem arguments of bloggers can get in the way of relevant information about the speech. However, blogs present a wide variety of perspectives from Michelle Malkin to the Daily Kos.
The comments on blogs allow for political debate that can increase readers' knowledge and present ideas that one may not have considered. Talking Points Memo blogger John Marshall invited comments from readers an hour before the speech, asking his audience to "bring it on" with their expectations. The Washington Post editor Robert G. Kaiser asked for questions and comments from audience members about his State of the Union: Analysis and responded to their posts, creating a political discussion.
Blogs and newspaper articles add to readers' understanding of the State of the Union, but they are no substitute for the real deal. So next January, grab the remote -- or your laptop (YouTube, anyone?) -- and tune in.
No comments:
Post a Comment