STATE OF THE UNION

Obama’s ideological fatigue

 

michaelgerson@washpost.com

President Obama’s second inaugural address and his recent State of the Union have been described as “two acts in the same play.” They are matched “bookends.” They belong together “like bagels and toothpaste.”

Actually, that last characterization is mine. It is difficult to imagine two more different speeches in intention or ambition.

The inaugural presented Obama’s unvarnished progressivism as the culmination of the American founding.

The State of the Union presented a grab bag of proposals, some recycled (infrastructure spending, the Paycheck Fairness Act), some piddling (college affordability scorecards, a few “manufacturing hubs”), most very typical.

The revolution of Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall evidently arrives with the $9 minimum wage.

The State of the Union also notched down the stridency. Only a few times were Republicans accused of betraying “teachers,” “cops,” “firefighters” and “senior citizens and working families.”

By Obama standards, a model of grace.

The speech was Clintonian, which some of us found reassuring. Many of Obama’s largest requests were downright reasonable. The emotional centerpiece of his remarks was a call for votes on three prudent, incremental gun control measures.

He challenged Republicans to return to a position on climate disruption that many held only a few years ago. He embraced the possibility of an “AIDS-free generation,” which should (one would hope) find support on both sides of the aisle. He outlined a centrist position on immigration reform designed to accommodate GOP concerns.

If Republicans find these measures ideologically aggressive, it is only because their ideology has become immoderate.

The main problem with Obama’s State of the Union was not zealotry or overreach; it was a pervasive lack of substance and seriousness.

Obama is exactly right about the sequester scheduled for March 1. Spending reductions that are equally applied are not equally felt — some fall on waste and bureaucracy, others on meat inspectors and the provision of AIDS drugs. Across-the-board cuts are an abdication of governing and moral choice.

But, as former Clinton adviser William Galston noted, Obama “urged agreements that would avert these events but offered nothing beyond what he had already put on the table.”

The president seemed more interested in setting up blame for the sequester than avoiding it.

Obama is generally right on the two elements of an eventual agreement to stabilize the finances of the government — broad tax reform that closes loopholes and health entitlement reform. In his speech, he correctly noted that, on our current path, “retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children.”

Yet he proceeded to dismiss the urgency of deficit reduction and embrace policies that only address the short-term need. “Obama appears to have decided,” says Galston, “that there is no possibility of resolving the larger fiscal issues on terms that he and his party would find acceptable.”

Obama is right in tackling the problem of economic mobility — the need to “build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them.”

And he raised some unavoidable issues: early childhood education and job training. But, so far, there are no details attached to these proposals that would allow an assessment of their seriousness and cost.

Such vagueness suffused the speech. If Congress refuses to move on climate change, Obama didn’t promise to act. He promised to “direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions.”

He didn’t pledge voting rights enforcement.

He proposed “a nonpartisan commission to improve the voting experience in America.” Instead of proposing actual plans, he issued “a new goal for America: Let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses,” and “a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools.” “We’ll work with local leaders,” he said, “to target resources at public safety” and “my administration will begin to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns.”

Executive directives like these — “my administration will begin to partner” — involve a diminution of the executive and indicate a weak policy process.

It is something I occasionally encountered when I was head of White House speechwriting. The word goes out to the Energy Department: We need a proposal. The idea comes back: “Tonight I am instructing my distinguished energy secretary to convene a blue-ribbon panel that will study a cooperative process with state and local officials to set the goal of redesigning the American energy experience within 10 years.”

Such ideas are typical products of government. Including them in the State of the Union address is a sign of ideological fatigue.

© 2013, Washington Post Writers Group

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

  •  
MILBANK

    JOURNALISM

    A contrary view on the Pulitzers

    On Monday, my Washington Post colleagues celebrated winning the Pulitzer Prize for public service along with the Guardian newspaper for their reporting on Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency.

  •  
DVIR

    EDUCATION

    X + Algebra Wall = Pass

    As they prepare to take the Algebra 1 end-of-course exam in coming weeks, many Florida students face an unnerving prospect: to graduate high school, they must pass a test that a good portion of their predecessors have failed.

  •  
WU

    SUNSHINE LAW

    Pass this open government bill

    When it comes to having an open and transparent government that is accountable to the people, Florida truly leads the nation. Since the Florida Government in the Sunshine law was enacted in 1967, we have served as a model for other states.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category