Thoughts on the State of the Union

After subjecting myself to a seemingly endless number of Republican debates, it was refreshing to hear someone articulating Democratic talking points. Obama's State of the Union address reminded the country of how much more cogent, thoughtful, and well spoken he is as compared to any of his would be Republican challengers. Even Obama's biggest detractors admit that he is a masterful public speaker. He's able to couch his rhetoric in a positive tone. His words make liberals swoon, even if he's advancing centrist or right of center ideas. The best recap and analysis I heard about last night's speech was from Ben Steinberg, a friend of the blog and a well informed commentator on political affairs. He tweeted "Well, that was a pretty good speech about a bunch of things that are never going to happen."

I'll take a second to add that I think that Twitter and other social networking spheres have had a profound effect on political discourse. One can get an instantaneous perspective on how their cohort understands political events. The real time aspect of Twitter generally means that things said on that sight have not been filtered through other peoples perspectives, and are thusly a true representation of people's visceral feelings. Too often it seems that the media shapes a narrative that's only partially based on real events. Twitter eliminates the middle man and therefore gives us an understanding of how the general population feels, as opposed to the media establishment.

Getting back to Mr. Steinberg's tweet, I wholeheartedly agree. The State of the Union often takes on a laundry list form, and I'm left wondering how many of the ideas Obama proposed will come to fruition. I can still recall Bush pledging to return the US to the moon and eventually Mars in 2004, as well as pledging to improve fuel efficiency. The State of the Union is always long on platitudes and token shoutouts for various issue groups, and short on any tangible effects. Obama is particularly skilled at delivering partisan messages in a seemingly nonpartisan way, which is a valuable skill. I agreed with a lot of Obama's message, though I did not particularly like his celebration of American militarism and empire. All in all, the State of the Union is just another example of the theatrical nature of American politics. Instead of actually working together to fix America's problems, the two sides merely work on honing a more palatable way of describing their ideologies.

For what it's worth, I thought Mitch Daniels was very effective in the Republican rebuttal. He seemed to offer moderate conservatism, as opposed to a total destruction of the social safety net. Mr. Daniels, who served as Bush's budget director, is perhaps the least credible person to take issue with the national debt, but I found him more effective than any of the Republican candidates. This national exposure came on the same day spokesperson for the Republican establishment, Bill Kristol, openly speculated whether Mr. Daniels could be a late entry for the Republican nomination.

My last comment is about the so-called "Buffett Rule". Of course it's ludicrous that Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than one of the richest men on the planet. What I found even more ridiculous is that Mr. Buffett pays his secretary only 60,000 dollars a year. While that salary is well above the average American's, it seems a little chintzy for a man who reported an income of 62,855,038 dollars in 2010. Perhaps Mr. Buffett, who's celebrated for his frugality, is trying to belie the theory of trickledown economics personally. Obviously, Mr. Buffett should be applauded for his willing advocation of self sacrifice. Still it seems a little wrong that his hard working secretary makes a relative pittance, with nary a capital gain to be made from Berkshire Hathaway stock.