On Tuesday evening, President Barack Obama began his election year State of the Union address with a war metaphor, comparing the unified American military to the dysfunctional Congress. Unity and cooperation proved to be the big themes for Obama in this speech, and correspondingly he proposed mostly moderate policy changes in an attempt to build an electoral base and appear above the fray of squabbling legislators. It was an all-too-cautious approach from the President at a time when the nation needs dramatic and immediate change.
The most significant weaknesses in his address pertained to environmental policy. Obama’s proposal to open more than 75 percent of potential offshore oil fields plays well with the electorate, but will counteract incentives to develop clean energy. His promised research and development of natural gas will proliferate environmentally disastrous hydraulic fracturing while also threatening public health. The Navy’s purchase of alternative energy capacity sounds green, but the public land to be developed for energy use is most often wilderness, and our natural heritage is much better left alone. Even so, Obama did acknowledge that government support is critical in helping businesses spur energy innovation, and promised loan guarantees for energy companies—a big commitment after the Solyndra debacle. He also proposed ending subsidies for oil companies and incentives against energy waste, but none of these commitments represented a break from his usual moderate environmental stance.
Obama’s position on education was more productive, and included a proposal that each state require all students to stay in school until they graduate or turn 18. He also promoted extending the tuition tax credit and a path to citizenship for undocumented students. Although these stances are logical and welcome, his failure to mention the DREAM act was disappointing. As usual, the President used a large part of his speech to advocate moderate reinvestment in American infrastructure and manufacturing. He also reiterated his desire to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and called for a 30 percent tax on the top income bracket. As with his other proposals, these are a good start, but do not go far enough to ensure a robust economic recovery.
Overall, this State of the Union was one of Obama’s vaguest addresses, and was clearly designed for campaign mode. Obama took populist positions on most issues, drew distinctions between himself and Congress, and, above all, played it safe. This unwillingness to take electoral risk has sadly been one constant characteristic of his tenure. Obama’s rhetoric was soaring and inspirational, but he will need to beef up his progressive credentials in the coming months if he expects robust support from his base and wants to deliver on the change he promised in 2008.
