TORONTO – Global News asked political experts Royce Koop, Renan Levine and Ryan Hurl for their analyses of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union 2012 address, including how his words will affect Canadians.
The thin line between governing and politicking is often murky – which side of the equation was tonight’s address on?
Renan Levine: Politicking and posturing. Washington creates very little policy during a Presidential election year. With Republicans holding a majority in the House, and the Democrats holding a majority in the Senate, 2012 will be little different. This speech was about reminding people of the successes of the Obama administration, a signal of the tone Obama will use in the year’s campaign and a chance to respond to frequent attacks by the Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination.
Royce Koop: Obama offered to work with anyone in the Chamber, but promised to fight back against obstructionism. Basically, he was telling the Republicans not to oppose him, and he was framing any future opposition from Congress as obstructionism. The problem is: it’s possible to oppose the president without engaging in obstructionism. So I think that there was politicking here in that respect. Obama did go out of his way to congratulate himself, on both foreign affairs issues and on domestic economic issues. That counts as politicking, but he was also highlighting his successes in order to rationalize the course of action he was proposing tonight. This was particularly true on economic and jobs issues. I think that he was more focused on governing than on politicking tonight.
Ryan Hurl: The line is thin to non-existent tonight; President Obama is well aware that the upcoming campaign will hinge upon his ability to present himself as the best defender of the interests of the working class and the middle class, and the substance of the speech reflected this, particularly his emphasis upon economic policy. Yet he was remarkably restrained in many ways; while there was much for the GOP to disagree with, there were few direct partisan attacks. The Roberts Court was not singled out for abuse this year, for instance.
According to a survey done by the Pew Research Center, 81 per cent of respondents want the president to focus on domestic issues rather than foreign affairs – did he do this?
Levine: Obama led and closed with foreign affairs and drew heavily on a military analogy about teamwork and working together on a common mission. In between, much of the talk was about domestic politics, which Americans – because of the state of the economy and a growing resignation that America will leave Afghanistan and Iraq before they become strong, stable democracies – think is the big priority right now.
Koop: It’s like Bill Clinton helped to write the speech: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Obama certainly made reference to several important foreign affairs issues: Iraq, Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, the Taliban. But he got these out of the way at the start. This speech was solidly focused on domestic issues, particularly jobs and the economy. Obama has paid attention to what’s on the minds of Americans, and this speech reflects this.
Hurl: The President’s choice of topics reflected the interest that preoccupy the public– no surprise there. However, he did his best to remind Americans about the ongoing challenges in foreign affairs; he almost certainly did not do enough. It was an understandable choice, as Americans are not in the mood to hear about the problems of Russia, Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Yet problems in those places are likely to affect the United States in the near future, however much Americans would prefer to focus on domestic problems.
Get daily National news
Will the public buy into the president’s plan for creating jobs and improving the American economy? Is he convincing in his delivery?
Koop: Obviously Obama is an excellent communicator and he was, as usual, convincing in his delivery. He talked about WWII veterans, and said things like “We can do it!” However, in order to be really convincing, he would have to present substantive policy proposals related to creating jobs and improving the American economy. There weren’t many solid policy proposals, but he did make it clear where his priorities lay: for example, reforming the tax code, opening up markets for manufactured goods, skills development, and education. A very clear emphasis on the economy and on jobs.
Hurl: The public as a whole will not buy into his economic vision, because individuals have diverse economic interests. Obama’s conception of business-government relations can be viewed from multiple perspectives; for some it is a bold and creative vision, for others it leads to “crony capitalism,” a system where certain sectors of the economy are shielded from competition and subsidized by the public. There are some aspects of his approach tonight that could pay off in electoral dividends, however– the tough talk on trade policy, for instance. For the most part, however, the Democratic public will buy into his plan; the Republican public will not.
Levine: I expect many watching the talk will respond favorably to Obama, who remains a powerful orator. However, I don’t think that after three years of (at best) tepid economic and jobs growth, people will except that Obama will create jobs and improve the economy a great deal in the next 12 months – or 24 months. That doesn’t mean the economy will not improve, but I do not think that most Americans will give Obama credit for that improvement, especially as the Republican Congress will surely try to take some credit for growth since they took control a year ago.
Obama has received harsh criticism in the past, even from people in his own party for being too conciliatory with the GOP – how did he do tonight?
Koop: Obama took it very easy on the Republicans tonight. There were little veiled shots, but it was clear that he did not intend for this to be a provocative, combative State of the Union address. He was very positive, very optimistic. He’s going to be running an optimistic re-election campaign.
Levine: Obama has been criticized roundly for being conciliatory – or at least a centrist on issues like energy and the environment. But he has also been criticized for being a staunch liberal, and playing partisan, hardball politics against the Republicans. Could ‘both’ and ‘neither’ be true? This was a talk that emphasized bi-partisan cooperation and working together for “common sense solutions”. From Obama this is thinly veiled criticism that the Republicans are not cooperating.
Hurl: He doesn’t need to convince left wing voters to support him in 2012. This explains his relatively conciliatory language tonight. I should point out, however, that not everyone will find his language conciliatory. For many, Obama’s attempt to use the military as a model for domestic politics is rather disturbing, even un-democratic. But those people are Ron Paul supporters, and they will not be voting for the President.
What were the big omissions in his speech?
Koop: Keystone was an important omission, at least from our perspective as Canadians. Obama spent a fairly significant amount of time talking about the environment, clean energy, and climate change. It shows that the Keystone outcome is consistent with Obama’s overall approach.
Hurl: His discussion of the long term fiscal challenges faced by the United States was perfunctory, at best. Those challenges cannot be met simply by taxing “billionaires” (or even those making over $250,000); the pain will have to extend much further, whether in terms of budget cuts or tax increases. So, the biggest omission is that the President is still not talking seriously about deficits; in a speech filled with expensive promises, this was a very serious omission.
Levine: Guantanamo Bay and Keystone were notably absent, but this speech was not about discussing the shortcomings or the controversial decisions by the White House… This speech was about extolling the virtues and successes of the Obama Presidency.
Does his address affect Canada in any way?
Koop: Obama spent a significant amount of time discussing how his administration would assist in the development of clean energy, and he was remarkably critical of “oil companies”. This certainly affects Canada given that the federal government is aiming to enhance both energy production and exports (largely from the oil sands). The speech will also lend credibility to the government’s argument that developments like the Northern Gateway pipeline are necessary to boost exports to countries other than the US, because American leaders are increasingly hostile to Canadian energy exports.
Levine: His discussion about lowering the corporate tax rate and turning to domestic sources of energy could have implications for Canada. Companies on both sides of the US-Canada border could be greatly affected by changes in the tax rate on multinational corporations and those companies that hire Canadians to support and assist operations in the USA. The emphasis on domestic sources of energy could have both economic and environmental implications for Canada… But it could also signal a willingness to compromise on matters like (a slightly redirected?) Keystone pipeline.
Hurl: The discussion of a “Trade Enforcement Unit” should, I think, give Canadians some trepidation. Unfortunately for Canada, there are a sizable number of American voters, in both parties, who are united in their suspicion of foreign trade; as always, Canadian leaders will have to make concerted efforts to defuse American protectionism.
Do you see any preparations for the upcoming presidential campaign in his speech?
Koop: Obama did a good job of presenting himself as someone who had achieved results on a range of issues (for example, the assassination of Osama bin Laden). His approach was very positive, and that is the kind of re-election campaign that we can expect to see from him. Obama also spent a fair amount of time discussing reforms to the tax code that would impose a heavier burden on households earning over 250,000 per year. It seemed like a very useful way of preparing for attacks on Mitt Romney, who is very wealthy and who has faced criticisms over how he amassed his fortune at Bain Capital. Perhaps not surprisingly, Romney finally released his tax returns, which demonstrated that he had paid a fairly low income tax rate, earlier today. Obama’s many references to “fairness,” particularly economic fairness, are also useful in this respect.
Hurl: Yes, roughly from the first word to the last. The economic aspects of the speech– the criticisms of Wall Street, the plans to promote manufacturing, to protect homeowners, and so on– were clearly meant to appeal to the working class white voters who were solid supporters of President Clinton (and who were much less solid supporters of Gore, Kerry, and Obama.) I think that his speech tried to address the concerns of those voters; whether they will vote for President Obama on the basis of those plans for the future, as opposed to the current state of the economy, is a very different question.
Levine: After a big Republican debate last week, and another next week as the Republicans fight over a huge prize, Florida, that could be crucial in November – this speech is part of the presidential campaign. That campaign is now. Its not upcoming.
Royce Koop is Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University, where he studies federalism, public policy, and political parties. He is the author of Grassroots Liberals: Organizing for Local and National Politics.
Renan Levine is a Lecturer at the University of Toronto-Scarborough. His research focuses on voting behaviour, political strategy and U.S. politics.
Ryan Hurl received his PhD in Government from Cornell University. He currently teaches classes in American politics and constitutional law at the University of Toronto.
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.