State of the Union revamps presidency
Rahul Rekhi
Issue date: 2/5/10 Section: Opinion
It is, perhaps, a telling reflection on our society that there was more buzz surrounding Steve Jobs' State of the Union than of President Barack Obama's. But while the Apple CEO's unveiling of the long-awaited iPad was, in a word, underwhelming, the President's address embodied a paradigm shift in his presidency that may prove to be the catalyst he so desperately needs.
To say the last few months haven't exactly been smooth sailing for Obama would be a tremendous understatement. Job growth remains anemic at best, with millions of Americans reeling from their pink slips and imagining months of hardship and toil; the health care bill, muddled and mutilated by special interests and backroom deals, contains "reform" that is but a shadow of what the president once envisioned. And just last week, the once-imposing Democratic Senate supermajority crumbled under the flight of independent voters to Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
Granted, a midterm slump is hardly a phenomenon unique to the Obama presidency. In an apt parallel, Bill Clinton himself faced a major legislative defeat with his own version of health care reform during his first year in office, and ended that year with an approval rating far worse than Obama's. Even the so-called Teflon President, Ronald Reagan, ended his first year with the 57 percent approval rating Obama now possesses. Both Clinton and Reagan, needless to say, went on to champion healthy - and immensely popular - presidencies, and secured the esteemed second term. Indeed, an integral reason for the political rebounds of these two men was a resurgent economy: something that, with additional stimulus (and a bit of luck), we may finally see later this year.
Nevertheless, few would contest the notion that these next few weeks are particularly crucial to the political future of the Obama administration. Which brings us to the night of his speech.
On full display, the President's oratory was first-class - no surprises there. I think it's safe to say that, regardless of political alignment, most find the complexity of his reasoning and the eloquence of his speech ceaselessly impressive.
But what we saw was not, as some anticipated, a dramatic conversion of the Obama agenda; rather, it was a refocusing, a sharpening of what got him elected: less health care, more economy, equal parts detail and rhetoric. Not brand new, but back to basics.
Indeed, it was a bolder - yet deftly diplomatic - Obama, more in tune with the electorate, exposing Democrats and Republicans and, yes, even the Supreme Court. It was an Obama not just reciting an agenda but laying out a vision, rallying the American people not just to a hope but to a cause. Acknowledging his shortcomings, he nonetheless asserted the legitimacy of his positions. A friend of mine pronounced it the "first true demonstration of leadership since the campaign."
Of course, this has led many, including the aforementioned friend, to openly wonder: "Where has this guy been?"
The fact is, in recent months, Obama has fallen victim to his own pragmatism. In an effort to efficiently pass his agenda through a tangled and unwilling Congress, he has been forced to sacrifice many of the ideals he so ardently espoused (in particular, transparency and yes, bipartisanship). But such a path is fundamentally unsustainable; when the appeal to reason washes against the monolithic gridlock of partisan bickering, Obama must evoke the symbolic powers of the bully pulpit, transcending the plebian legislature to enact his agenda.
For what makes a president great is not merely effectively utilizing the status quo - it is transcending the circumstances given to him to implement his agenda. The sheer brilliance of LBJ's congressional arm-twisting, for example, made possible the passage of the first Civil Rights Act. In the wake of the Great Depression, FDR unified a directionless legislature to enact sweeping economic and financial reform. And Theodore Roosevelt himself battled special interests and an increasingly corrupt Congress to enact progressive reforms that were far ahead of his time. These fixtures of American history were not merely men, but symbols; not just presidents, but leaders who became larger than life.
Obama is, by most accounts, a good president. And stripped away of the congressional partisan muck surrounding his administration in recent weeks, he appeared true to form, once again the shining light of progress he appeared before he stepped into the White House. But to really enact the change he wants us to believe in, he'll have to become that figure we saw giving the State of the Union.
We can only hope.
Rahul Rekhi is a Sid Richardson College freshman.
To say the last few months haven't exactly been smooth sailing for Obama would be a tremendous understatement. Job growth remains anemic at best, with millions of Americans reeling from their pink slips and imagining months of hardship and toil; the health care bill, muddled and mutilated by special interests and backroom deals, contains "reform" that is but a shadow of what the president once envisioned. And just last week, the once-imposing Democratic Senate supermajority crumbled under the flight of independent voters to Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
Granted, a midterm slump is hardly a phenomenon unique to the Obama presidency. In an apt parallel, Bill Clinton himself faced a major legislative defeat with his own version of health care reform during his first year in office, and ended that year with an approval rating far worse than Obama's. Even the so-called Teflon President, Ronald Reagan, ended his first year with the 57 percent approval rating Obama now possesses. Both Clinton and Reagan, needless to say, went on to champion healthy - and immensely popular - presidencies, and secured the esteemed second term. Indeed, an integral reason for the political rebounds of these two men was a resurgent economy: something that, with additional stimulus (and a bit of luck), we may finally see later this year.
Nevertheless, few would contest the notion that these next few weeks are particularly crucial to the political future of the Obama administration. Which brings us to the night of his speech.
On full display, the President's oratory was first-class - no surprises there. I think it's safe to say that, regardless of political alignment, most find the complexity of his reasoning and the eloquence of his speech ceaselessly impressive.
But what we saw was not, as some anticipated, a dramatic conversion of the Obama agenda; rather, it was a refocusing, a sharpening of what got him elected: less health care, more economy, equal parts detail and rhetoric. Not brand new, but back to basics.
Indeed, it was a bolder - yet deftly diplomatic - Obama, more in tune with the electorate, exposing Democrats and Republicans and, yes, even the Supreme Court. It was an Obama not just reciting an agenda but laying out a vision, rallying the American people not just to a hope but to a cause. Acknowledging his shortcomings, he nonetheless asserted the legitimacy of his positions. A friend of mine pronounced it the "first true demonstration of leadership since the campaign."
Of course, this has led many, including the aforementioned friend, to openly wonder: "Where has this guy been?"
The fact is, in recent months, Obama has fallen victim to his own pragmatism. In an effort to efficiently pass his agenda through a tangled and unwilling Congress, he has been forced to sacrifice many of the ideals he so ardently espoused (in particular, transparency and yes, bipartisanship). But such a path is fundamentally unsustainable; when the appeal to reason washes against the monolithic gridlock of partisan bickering, Obama must evoke the symbolic powers of the bully pulpit, transcending the plebian legislature to enact his agenda.
For what makes a president great is not merely effectively utilizing the status quo - it is transcending the circumstances given to him to implement his agenda. The sheer brilliance of LBJ's congressional arm-twisting, for example, made possible the passage of the first Civil Rights Act. In the wake of the Great Depression, FDR unified a directionless legislature to enact sweeping economic and financial reform. And Theodore Roosevelt himself battled special interests and an increasingly corrupt Congress to enact progressive reforms that were far ahead of his time. These fixtures of American history were not merely men, but symbols; not just presidents, but leaders who became larger than life.
Obama is, by most accounts, a good president. And stripped away of the congressional partisan muck surrounding his administration in recent weeks, he appeared true to form, once again the shining light of progress he appeared before he stepped into the White House. But to really enact the change he wants us to believe in, he'll have to become that figure we saw giving the State of the Union.
We can only hope.
Rahul Rekhi is a Sid Richardson College freshman.
Comments from unregistered users are subject to editor approval. Log in or register now to post a comment immediately. Alternatively, you may now even post a comment anonymously.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Joseph Kingma
posted 2/05/10 @ 10:40 AM CST
Where in the world did you get your 57% approval statistic? Gallup currently shows a paltry 50% approval rating, as of today. Also, how can you possibly believe what he says in this speech when he's broken so many promises already? What about closing Gitmo? What about being out of Iraq by 2009? What about jobs (any one with half a brain can figure out that a steady 10% unemployment rate, with employers never ceasing to "unexpectedly" lay off more employees, is not the "hope and change" he promised during his campaign)? What about doing away with signing statements? And, as if these broken promises weren't enough, he has the audacity (pardon the pun) to announce a new "spending freeze", as if he is the picture of fiscal responsibility. (Continued…)
Post a Comment