Image via Wikipedia
Dear America,
The State of the Union Address, and for that matter the opposing party's response as well, are usually no more than broad statements of principle dedicated to the purpose of putting the American electorate on notice of what the president and his party intend to attempt to do over the next year and how the opposition intends to stop him. They are sprinkled with vague proposals-- sub-principles if you like-- but they are short on remedies for the problems that exist. It may have been at one time-- before there were mass media to be employed in making political hay-- that the state of the union was actually the subject that the president addressed, but no more. The President laid out his agenda last night, and Mitch Daniels, the conservative Republican governor of Indiana, laid out the Republican rationale for opposing, and in this modern era of the filibuster as a common form of obstruction, thwarting Mr. Obama's efforts to right the ship of state. In that sense, it was all very uninteresting. We know that the Republicans will do anything to prevent the success of the Obama Administration, especially now when they have been so successful at it that they are on the verge of accomplishing their purpose in doing so...that is fighting off economic recovery long enough to give themselves the chance to maintain their control of the House of Representatives and take control of The Senate in 2012. They hope to prevail in consequence of the opposition's failure to restore the American economy and to overcome the Republicans' recalcitrance, which has resulted in the governmental inertia that has been visited on us. If the Republicans and the Republican conservative complex (Rcc) in general can prevent remedial action for just six more months, they can call Mr. Obama a failure and perhaps take the White House along with the congress. They are rooting for failure, and that is what was interesting about The President's speech last night.
Throughout the speech, the camera focused from time to time on Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor, but Cantor in particular, sitting stone faced with hands in lap as the rest of the congress, or at least the Democrats in it, applauded for points made by President Obama that seemed indubitably universal. For example, it wasn't long ago that Republicans were chanting for tax reform, and several of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination even floated plans of their own by virtue of which a single tax rate would apply to all and deductions of virtually every description would be abrogated. Yet, when President Obama talked about reforming the tax code in the name of restoring our economy so as to do those very things, Cantor and McConnell sat on their hands with their bare faces hanging out...on national television. Meanwhile, behind The President sat John Boehner, the Speaker of the House. He did not demonstrate any particular enthusiasm for any part of President Obama's speech, but he applauded politely whenever the occasion arose, thus demonstrating his partisanship, but eschewing the appearance of obstructionism or Machiavellian dogmatism. That is what interested me. Boehner seemed to be separating himself from the hard line partisanship of the Republican conferences in both houses, perhaps unintentionally, but never-the-less demonstrating that he is what even his political adversaries often say: a decent man. Cantor and McConnell however demonstrated that neither of them is any such thing. I have mentioned only The President's proposal to reform the income tax code, but there were other points in the speech when the Republican disloyal opposition revealed themselves to be interested in Political purposes but disinterested in doing anything, even the right thing. It was all there for the people and the press to see. The question is, did they see it, or more importantly did they see it for what it was.
President Obama took a milder approach to the issue of partisanship than I would have. But then, when I was still practicing law, I would often put aside for a day or two a letter I drafted in anger before I sent it, and more often than not, I would throw it away. So my attitude on the speech today may not be where I wind up after a period of temperate reflection. So, with the prospect that my emotions will subside with time, I must say that the speech did us all a lot of good. Mr. Obama calmly, but in no uncertain terms said that he intends to resurrect our economy with or without congress. And he pointed out that the filibuster is the favored tactic of those who would sabotage his plans, thus making an overt pitch for a change in the rules after the 2012 election, both in The Senate where the filibuster has prolonged the disaster of this recession/depression that was thirty years in the making and in The House where obstruction is also practiced but without the fanfare that it gets in the other chamber. And he astutely insulated himself from criticism for letting partisan politics influence him on that point by admitting that neither party was without blame when it came to misusing the rules of congress for ulterior reasons; he admonished both parties to stop the manipulation of national politics with process rather than substance...with tactics rather than casting their votes in the light of day.
This next ten months promise to be exciting if nothing else. The frustrations of obduracy in the opposition will continue to be present, but if The President has revealed his inner politician with The State of the Union Address, it will at least be a fight that we will all see...a true political battle for the hearts and minds of the American people...and for our wellbeing as well.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment