The State of the Union

In assessing the President's speech last night one needs to think about what he was trying to accomplish but also to reflect on how the American people have perceived his first year in office. I believe he had a very tough task. On the one hand he needed to not abandon the people who elected him. And here I think he made a significant miscalculation. Last night's speech was a clarion call to liberal values. I do not think he convinced many of the independent voters who have been leaving him in droves that he was on their side. A lot of his values were attempts to become what many in the media would call populist values. Here I think polling suggests the the vast majority of Americans are of two minds. They are grumpy at most of their institutions. They do not like what has been happening in in Washington and at the same time they hold resentments at Wall Street. Clearly, from my perspective, the President's speech seemed to fall on the side of being against Wall Street. While he made some motion toward chastising the situation in DC, his unwillingness to even begin to suggest that he might have over-reached on health care suggests that he believes that he thinks the polling on health care reflects misinformation rather than formed beliefs. His danger here is that playing the populist card cannot be effective coming from the role as a patrician (I know what is best for you) and I think that is what his speech sounded like.

The second conclusion about the speech came from his specific proposals. He kept tried to sketch a theme that he had not raised taxes (in fact lowered them), that a freeze with lots of exemptions (in the areas where the problems in growth in government are the most profound, and that he supports expansions of free trade (although a couple of major trade pacts have languished because of lack of support from his administration). I do not think that is where the American people are at this point. The key polling statistic from the Massachusetts election was that almost two thirds of the American people want less government and less taxes over more government and more taxes. I think the President was unconvincing that he believes in that goal.

He is clearly trying to set up a 1948 election scenario where he can run against congress (especially the republicans). When you look at who is running the joint and the popularity of that leadership I do not believe that will be a successful strategy. Last time I checked Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were in his party not the GOP and those two are lightening rods for American feelings about the institution of congress. I am not sure that a majority of Americans can name the key members of the GOP leadership in either house.

I liked his ideas about earmarks. That small section was a good step. It will be interesting to see whether he follows through and whether congress adopts the proposal.

Finally, I was surprised about his ignoring Haiti. From my perspective the tragedy of Haiti presented a perfect opportunity to establish some recognition of the non-sword side of our foreign policy and to reassert our critical interests in the region. That was a lost opportunity.