The State of the Union

Avatar

Mike Dwyer

Mike Dwyer is a former writer and contributor at Ordinary Times.

Related Post Roulette

64 Responses

  1. Avatar Roland Dodds says:

    I missed the speech entirely. I imagine Democrats are saying the state of our union is sound and Republicans are saying we are two inches from commie/Isis totalitarianism, right?Report

  2. Avatar PatrickB says:

    Roland Dodds:
    Republicans are saying we are two inches from commie/Isis totalitarianism, right?

    Haley’s GOP response was partly a warning against Trumptarianism. Of course, a female GOP establishment governor and a African-American Democratic President speaking against Trump’s policies will probably increase Trump’s support in the GOP primaries.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to PatrickB says:

      So much the better *crunch*munch*.Report

    • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to PatrickB says:

      I will have to see her response. That’s a pretty bold thing to do in this season, especially as we get to primaries in a few weeks.

      It will only help Trump I imagine.Report

    • Avatar Kolohe in reply to PatrickB says:

      “GOP establishment governor”

      It’s amazing that a person that made her bones in politics by primarying a long term incumbent and got Sister Sarah to endorse her in her gubernatorial primary is now ‘the establishment’ (though she did get Mitt and both Sanfords to endorse her for GOP governor nominee, too)Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Kolohe says:

        Well, what the eff is “establishment” GOPism anymore? (I’m seriously asking: what’s viewed as “mainstream” is insane.) It’s the lipstick on the pig, more than anything else, seems to me.Report

        • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to Stillwater says:

          current GOP Establishment:
          2 parts Bush, 1 part Romney, 1 part McCain, give it that squishy cupcake under a car tire effect of Ryans spine and there ya go.

          Makes Bernie look pretty good.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

          Hah. At least one prominent Republican agrees with me about the lipstick on a pig stuff:

          Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said Wednesday that … he didn’t think Haley was a “principled conservative,” but added, “I think she’s beautiful so I’d be happy if she’s the face of the party.”

          Lololololol…Report

      • Avatar Richard Hershberger in reply to Kolohe says:

        It’s the downside to actually winning the governor’s office. At that point you have to either run a scorched earth campaign against your own state, like whosits in Kansas, or you have to actually govern. The one only works until people start noticing the results, while the other turns you into an establishment sellout. It is much better to either sit in the legislature where you can toss grenades with no negative consequences to yourself, or a statewide office below the governorship. Attorney general is a good one. You can get yourself in the news without the responsibility to actually run the state.Report

    • Avatar nevermoor in reply to PatrickB says:

      Other than the over-white clenched teeth, my takeaway from the rebuttal was (1) the GOP hates Trump; and (2) people should treat police violence like senseless and unpreventable violence.Report

  3. Avatar North says:

    I was solidly pleased with Obama’s speech as I would expect any centrist liberal to be. It was a workman speech, generally factual and reflects well on both the President and his Party. I earnestly hope they’ve read the mood of the electorate correctly and that it goes over well.Report

  4. Avatar Dennis Sanders says:

    It was a good final speech. I think though, that of course the opposition is going to say things are bad; if they said things were swell, they wouldn’t have anything to run on. But other than that it was one that was long on hope and short on partisan jabs.Report

  5. Avatar Damon says:

    I didn’t watch it either, but did listen to the follow up this am on NPR. As I recall he claimed victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is BS. He destabilized Libya, and much of north Africa, Syria, and Ukraine. We may be the most powerful country in the world, but we sure have a habit of screwing up other parts of the world.

    At least he got things going with the Cubans and Iranians. So now we’ll all sit around why nothing gets done in an election year.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Damon says:

      How did he destabilize Ukraine?Report

    • Avatar Roland Dodds in reply to Damon says:

      I agree that claiming we achieved “victory” in Afghanistan and Iraq is bullshit, but as much as I would like a different US FP, I don’t think American can carry the messed up state of Ukraine on its back. The fight in Ukraine has been a long time coming, and would have come about regardless of US support for the new government.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Damon says:

      Libya is a fair cop but I do not see how Syria or Ukraine get laid at Obama’s feet. If anything he’s generally kept us out of both regions which I’d think you’d appreciate.

      Afghanistan and Iraq are not so much Obama as standard US strategy for escaping quagmires: declare victory and leave.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North says:

        Ukraine, I agree with you.

        Syria? The fact that he indicated that he was capable of discussing “bright lines” with regards to chemical weapons kind of indicates that he had some sort of weird relationship to the conflict there more complicated than “we’re keeping out of it”. It’s good that we didn’t get deeper into it than we did…Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

          “…he had some sort of weird relationship to the conflict there more complicated than “we’re keeping out of it”.”

          Well, wouldn’t YOU if you were a secret Muslim?Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

            Given that Islam is a religion of peace, if Obama were a secret Muslim, he’d probably kill fewer people.

            That said, if I learned anything from Iraq, it’s that Henry Kissinger might not have been as bottomlessly evil as I thought he was. Political Realism has some things in its favor including the whole thing that it sometimes, occasionally, works. Had we said something like “As bad as Assad is, and he is bad, he is the frying pan as opposed to the fire and he can, in theory, play ball and we can slowly start floating transition plans once things get stable again” then we might have gotten somewhere a lot closer to “stable” than saying “we’re going to oppose Assad and we’re going to oppose ISIS and we’re going to support the moderate rebels who are never, eeeeeeeeeeeever, going to even get freaking close to being able to rule the country.”Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird says:

          Despite the fooferaw about the “bright lines” I’m not persuaded. Obama might have been ill advised in laying down said line, it can be debated, but what was the outcome? Republicans claim he backed down and discreditted himself. Liberals, and I, see him getting pretty mad, the Russians rushing in and the end result being that all the significant chemical weapons ended up removed from the country and destroyed. Considering how Syria proceeded to degrade from that point and considering that the alternative was some kind of US direct invervention into the teeth of same said chemical weapons I am baffled how anyone could consider the results a bad thing.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North says:

            So it should be laid at Obama’s feet, just have it pointed out that it’s a good thing?Report

            • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird says:

              I wouldn’t give him a ton of credit on it. I don’t honestly think Obama engineered it. He didn’t want to go in, clearly, so he asked Congress to authorize doing something but they, of course, didn’t want their fingerprints on it so they did their usual nothing. Meanwhile Putin and Assad got spooked and decided the weapons were more trouble than it was worth and offered a concession which Obama was bright enough to pocket.Report

            • Avatar trizzlor in reply to Jaybird says:

              What should be laid at his feet? The argument was that the “bright line” destabilized the country, the counter-argument was that the “bright line” got Russia to move chemical weapons out of there. I don’t see how these two things are remotely the same “it”.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to trizzlor says:

                When it comes to the current state of Syria, what are we even talking about?

                For what it’s worth, I don’t think that the “bright line” destabilized the country. I think the point of saying that there is a bright line is saying “if you cross this bright line, we will destabilize your country”.

                But what is our focus on the state of Syria in general? How they got rid of chem weapons? How we’re supporting moderate rebels but not Assad or ISIS?Report

              • Avatar trizzlor in reply to Jaybird says:

                I think there’s a difference between (a) joining in a bar brawl and (b) telling the brawlers to hand over any guns/knives or else you’ll join, which they do. You may disagree over whether (a) or (b) are the reality, but it’s pretty glib to pretend like someone arguing that (b) happened is just spinning (a) into a positive.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to trizzlor says:

                (b) telling the brawlers to hand over any guns/knives or else you’ll join, which they do

                “Chlorine itself, historically, has not been listed as a chemical weapon, but when it is used in this fashion can be considered a prohibited use of that particular chemical.”Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Now we’re nit splitting; gunpowder is also a chemical.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North says:

                The second quotation is not me. It is a quotation of Obama’s following the attack.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Damon says:

      Afghanistan isn’t necessarily BS.

      Given that we have no freaking idea what “victory” would even look like (was it ever even defined?), it makes sense to me to say “We got Osama, killed him, hurry, mission accomplished, we’re audi.”

      Did we hope to turn Afghanistan into the country it was prior to its (assisted) radicalization?Report

    • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to Damon says:

      The two points that I chuckled at were about the economy and the rule of law reference. That ‘noisy base’ reference was rich as well coming from the supposed leader of the nation.

      Nikki Haley was to much a establishment puppet, trying to compel the base to ‘fall inline’. Half the time it looked like she was fishing for marginal democrats.

      Same ole’Report

    • Avatar j r in reply to Damon says:

      As I recall he claimed victory in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is BS. He destabilized Libya, and much of north Africa, Syria, and Ukraine.

      I don’t buy this. I used to work for the federal government, in an office that had geographic responsibility for the Middle East and North Africa. I wasn’t particularly high up the food chain, but I did write an awful lot of briefing memos for senior folks attending policy meetings on my countries and attended lots of working level meetings myself.

      Almost all of the direction coming down from the White House came down to find a way to make things better without the U.S. government having to commit too much money or risk any people. If you want to fault the Obama administration for being lacking a clear set of policy goals or a realistic sense of what the U.S. could and could not accomplish or even for being feckless, fine, but the claim that the administration destabilized these countries has no merit. The thing that that the U.S. did that destabilized other countries was to declare the GWOT and that predates Obama. Sure, he largely went along with it, but he wasn’t the impetus and there is not a lot that he could have done get that genie back into the bottle.Report

      • Avatar Damon in reply to j r says:

        Dude,
        We helped enforce the no fly zone in Libya. We helped the Euros get Qaddafi removed. That destabilized the whole area. Later our “embassy” there was trying to get back weapons we delivered there, to support the rebellion, so they could be transferred to Syria. None of those items was much risk to the us or much cost.

        In Ukraine we supported a bunch of fascists. I’m not saying he bears all the fault, as certainly Iraq and Afghanistan got all f’ed up when Bush invaded, but he really didn’t help. And on top of that, he’s “droning” people all over the world.Report

    • Avatar KatherineMW in reply to Damon says:

      Russia gets the credit for destabilizing (or, more bluntly, invading) Ukraine, but I agree with the rest of your points. Libya was the case study in why intervention is a bad idea even when, on the surface, there seem to be humanitarian grounds. Toppling Gaddafi destabilized North Africa all the way to Mali.

      We should take a lesson from that with regards to ISIS. Why do you think they attacked France? It’s not just mindless violence. They want the West to intervene. They want to use us as a recruiting tool – they know that the Afghan and Iraq Wars have been a gift to violent Islamists, and they want to keep that going. Fighting Western troops goes over a lot better than murdering their fellow Muslims does. So they are doing everything possible to provoke us.

      My proposal is to assist Lebanon, Turkey, and other countries in supporting the floods of refugees from Syria; accept refugees ourselves; and let ISIS eventually burn themselves out by making everyone hate them. The other reason for this strategy is that there isn’t any force or faction in Syria whom we can back – ISIS and Assad are both terrible. Iraq and Afghanistan were lessons that trying to create a liberal democracy ex nihilo at gunpoint does not work well.Report

  6. Avatar Chip Daniels says:

    This SOTU pretty much explains why I have moved from being a Reagan Republican to an Obama Democrat.

    Say what you want about the tenets of Reagan’s Morning In America, but dude it’s at least an ethos.

    Both presidents crafted a vision that was accessible to everyone, where anyone could claim a stake.Report

  7. Avatar Kazzy says:

    Re: #1

    Obama doesn’t seem to answer the question as much as he attempts to explain the problem. Did he go on to offer solutions?Report

    • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Kazzy says:

      universal pre-k, every student hands-on computer science and math classes, recruit and support more great teachers, two years of free community college for every responsible student, strengthening social security and medicare, adding retraining and wage insurance to unemployment insurance, expanding tax cuts for low income workers without kids, and curing cancer.Report

  8. Avatar Kolohe says:

    The most surprising thing to me was the near complete lack of anything that would address the concerns of Black Lives Matter. A single sentence about criminal justice reform, which was part of a compound sentence that included helping people battling prescription drug abuse. (which is almost a stereotypical white people problem)Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Kolohe says:

      It was definitly a heavily election oriented speech and let’s face it; there’ll be penguins in hell before the GOP is at any risk of luring the BLM crowd away to the right.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to North says:

        They ain’t going to vote for any elephant part person, but if they don’t even show up to vote:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY

        And to be clear, it’s not a matter of alienation, or being berniebronaderish too cool for school, it’s a matter of the Democratic party needing active engagement to maintain their electoral edge.Report

      • Avatar Hoosegow Flask in reply to North says:

        While true, I think there is a growing dissatisfaction with the lack of action by Democrats. The prosecutors who failed to indict police officers in the Michael Brown and Tamir Rice cases were both Democrats, along with the governor of one of those states — the one with the heavy-handed police response to protesters that catapulted BLM to national attention, as well as mayors like Rahm Emanuel.

        If black voter turn-out tanks because they’re tired of only getting lip service (and often, like in the SOTU, not even that), it will be disastrous for the Democrats.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Hoosegow Flask says:

          Pondering you and Kolohe’s points I admit I can’t see why Obama would have elected to leave at least a mention out of his speech. He may think, realistically, that the GOP will block everything he attempts but that’s no excuse for not at least indicating solidarity/sympathy.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe in reply to North says:

        I also disagree that it was a election oriented speech. By its very words “5 years, 10 years, beyond”- it pretty much ignored the election (except of course, the deliberate swipes at Trumpitism).

        It’s Obama looking for a legacy. An intention that if anything he asked for does come to pass, it can be retconned into his list of historical achievements. (much like how Kennedy gets credit for the moonshot). He’s pretty much given up on trying to actually accomplish anything more. (He’s probably not even going to do the usual last minute Israel Palestine peace negotiation, between everything else being on fire and calling mission accomplished on the Iran deal)Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to North says:

        A large part of the Democratic Party is still afraid of appearing soft on crime even though crime is at record lows and talk about criminal justice reform is gaining ground. Democratic politicians tend to over learn some lessons and the Democratic coalition is a lot wider than the Republican one giving them less margin for error when it comes to appealing to various constituencies within the party. Obama might also think that he still doesn’t have the luxury of appearing as a specific national level advocate for concerns about race for a variety of reasons.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kolohe says:

      I happened to watch it on Al Jazeera and that was one of their primary criticisms: nothing on race.Report

      • Avatar nevermoor in reply to Kazzy says:

        I mean, not the word, but he and Nikki came down pretty clearly on opposite sides of the issue.

        From the link (not nesting quotes):

        In his address to the nation, President Obama celebrated the archetypal “protester” that many American cities have become acquainted with lately. Specifically, Obama said:

        I see it in the American who served his time, and dreams of starting over?—?and the business owner who gives him that second chance. The protester determined to prove that justice matters, and the young cop walking the beat, treating everybody with respect, doing the brave, quiet work of keeping us safe.

        In her rebuttal, Haley framed such protesting in more of a negative light:

        We’re feeling a crushing national debt, a health care plan that has made insurance less affordable and doctors less available, and chaotic unrest in many of our cities.

        Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to nevermoor says:

          Yea, but he pretty carefully framed it there as, “Let’s take care of everyone,” instead of, “Hey, this group of people have been and are getting the shaft and they need care in a very different way.”Report

          • Avatar nevermoor in reply to Kazzy says:

            Sure. That would have been a different message, true.

            But I’m not sure you can take an observation about help for reintegrating felons and the nobility of protesters and say there was nothing about race. Especially when the other side is blaming those same protesters for creating “chaotic unrest.”Report

  9. Avatar Michael Drew says:

    What I was finally able to admit last tonight is that while I do not agree with the President on every issue and I am certainly far from being a liberal, I do like him and I do believe he is doing what he thinks is best for this country.

    I admit I never quite got to this point with George W. Bush at least during his presidency, and despite obviously fully subjectively understanding that feeling wrt to him, I nevertheless also admit I don’t comprehend not feeling this way about Barack Obama roughly from first contact with him. It’s weird – I do feel like I understand coming not to like Obama early on because of an expectation of great magnanimity based on his campaign rhetoric not fulfilled. I don’t think that’s justified, but I get it. I don’t get thinking from the get-go that he was not motivated by his conception of the national interest.

    And yet that’s exactly how I felt about George W. Bush all the way through. I think it was the way his people handled the election aftermath, followed by the way they (I felt) openly reveled in the power-wave they rode after 9/11. Essentially, I thought at best he failed to rein in power-mad lieutenants who prevailed on him to invade Iraq. I am starting now to be able to retrofit an account of non-malicious neglect (something many accuse Obama of on many issues, suggesting what seems obvious: the office is now far too big for one man to fill; we’ll see about a woman) that simply allowed the Iraq invasion that could be described as at least not contrary to a sincere motivation to do something like what might be best for the country.

    A big part of this is that I’m simply in the tank for Obama more than for any politician in my lifetime so far (and surely going forward; these were the years when that’s a possibility for me in terms of age, as with the Kennedy generation, the Reagan generation, or as you see now, the generation just before mine that is so committed to a Clinton restoration). Another part of it is partisanship, to be sure. I would argue, though, that another part of it is that Bush at times really did make it hard to believe he had the best interests of the country at heart, or at least that he governed his inner circle so that his commitment thereto had any influence on what was done. Enough of his top lieutenants eventually left to write books raising questions about that, that I think I have some cross-partisan support in that view.

    I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and your piece here (that passage, really) precipitated a resolution I’ll try to keep. The next time we have a Republican president, I am going to work very hard to maintain a belief that, whatever my disagreements about what constitutes the best interests of the country, s/he in fact is operating from a generic desire to do what is best for the country, whatever that means to them. I’m hoping my inability to do this wrt George W. bush turns out to be kind of a one-off born largely of the bad for the got off on with the opposition. I didn’t have as much trouble with previous Republican presidents, but I was a kid when they were in charge.

    (With a few exceptions I’m not going to extend this to occupants of lower offices, largely because in so many cases I actually don’t believe they are primarily motivated by the best interest of the country, but instead by personal advancement up to and until they arrive in the Oval Office. But I will try to make more allowance for when I think I see evidence of that good intent on all sides.)Report

    • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Michael Drew says:

      Sorry, let me annotate that first sentence.

      I admit I never quite got to this point with George W. Bush [feeling reasonably sure he was doing what he thought was best for the country] at least during his presidency, and despite obviously fully subjectively understanding that feeling [*not* feeling he was doing what he thought was best for the country, because that’s how I feel] wrt to him, I nevertheless also admit I don’t comprehend not feeling this way [feeling he was doing what he thought was best for the country] about Barack Obama roughly from first contact with him.

      If that’s any clearer. …I.e., even though I felt a certain way about GWB (feeling from the beginning that he very well might not have generally acted out of concern for what he thought was best for the country), I nevertheless *don’t* comprehend feeling this way about Barack Obama (not from the beginning anyway, maybe not at all.)Report

  10. Point 3 illustrates why, as you say, I like Obama even while disagreeing with many of his policies and actions. He is sane and rational and thoughtful, and in United States federal politics those are unfortunately rare commodities.

    It’s good that he’s talking about income inequality, but it would be far better if he had done something about it. If you want an illustration of the scale of the problem: over 75% of wealth in the US is held by 10% of the population. About 25% of wealth is held by the top 0.1%. This is a level of inequality the US has not seen since the Great Depression.

    This is a trend directly caused by right-wing policies from Reagan onwards: in 1980, the top 0.1% accounted for 7% of the United States’ wealth (compared to around 25% now). Right-wing policies have been ascendant since the ’80s, and similar trends towards wealth concentration exist over that time exist in many other OECD countries..

    Which is why I don’t entirely agree with Obama’s fourth point. When most of the country’s politicians are dedicated to benefiting the extremely wealthy at the expense of everyone else, we need to call that as it is. Because they’re not acting in the people’s or the country’s best interests.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-inequality-top-01-worth-as-much-as-the-bottom-90Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *