SOTU
I was underwhelmed by the State of the Union address. I agree with Peter Beinart’s take, that it was a good speech, but painful:
The painful part was that by so effectively beginning a new conversation about jobs and financial oversight, he subtly acknowledged that he has lost the old ones: over health care and cap and trade. He didn’t even explain what cap and trade is, let alone take on the Republican objections to it. And while he discussed health care in greater detail, his decision to leave that discussion until so late in the speech spoke volumes. What’s more, his discussion of why reform is necessary was less than compelling. While he offered a laundry list of problems with the current system, he didn’t encapsulate the case for his version of reform in a simple, memorable way. And this may have been his last chance.
It didn’t soar. It didn’t really even glide that much. It missed precious opportunities to educate. The President showed some interesting human vulnerabilities: admitting failures, weaknesses, and basically pleading for lawmakers to participate in good faith. But once political self-interest has undone the norms of restraint and decorum, how do you ever go back?
Of course, my whole experience of the speech was warped by my hopes for some kind of magical turnaround on healthcare—like a dramatic confrontation over the filibuster, with the President explaining (not just mentioning) the supermajority math and how it is an affront to majority rule; or a direct appeal to the American people to urge their representatives to pass the bill. But then, it’s ideas like these that show why I should probably keep my thoughts about political strategy to myself.
About Me
- I write this blog.
-
My twitter feed:
