After an unimpressive

State of the Union, Obama speaks out

Like most politically-interested individuals, I watched President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech last Wednesday night with great anticipation.

As he reminded, many presidents before him have delivered the constitutionally required speech during times of war, depression, strife and struggle. Given that our present period in history combines each of these four facets, I wondered how he would lay out his priorities for a better country while also assuaging Americans’ anxieties.

Would the president defy the expectations of political prognosticators and his own advisers by attempting to push a long-awaited and fiercely debated health care reform bill over the hallowed “finish line”? With next fall’s elections — not to mention his own potential reelection bid in 2012 — in mind, would he instead emphasize jobs and the economy? Finally, would he directly address Republicans, attempting to both impress and suppress the powerful pains in his presidential posterior?

Yes, yes and yes. Obama did all these things and more.

On the economy, he very predictably channeled populist anger in referring to the bank bailout as a “root canal” for Republicans and Democrats, and stating that, “If these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.” Just as predictably, he trumpeted the fact his administration had kept Americans buying by signing into law 25 tax cuts and the belief that without its stimulus bill, unemployment would be far higher.

Obama also incorporated into his speech every other item on his laundry list of legislative hopes and dreams, being sure to frame them as actions that would boost the economy. He called for tax cuts for small businesses and increases for corporations that export jobs; greater investment in the nation’s infrastructure; and an education bill that would target community colleges, offer tax credits for collegians’ parents and extend student loan forgiveness. He also spoke of further investments in not only that infamous “green energy” — including biofuel, clean coal and most notably nuclear — but also in offshore oil and gas development, stating that a climate bill could not wait because “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation.”

Saving the best — or at least most heated issue — for last, Obama discussed health care reform. He both acknowledged his own strategic shortcomings and implored legislators to not look at the bill as a zero-sum game, but as an absolute necessity for the American people and the American economy.

Closely related, he stated that while he never thought his election would usher in “peace, harmony and a post-partisan era,” every vote on every issue could no longer be seen as a win or a loss for each side, and every day could not be regarded as election day. Such a mindset frustrates Americans and sows division and distrust in them, he correctly asserted. He called on both parties to do what they were elected to do, and suggested that he would like to begin to hold monthly meetings with each party’s leadership.

Then the president uttered the ceremonial “God bless America” in closing a well-spoken but essentially uninspiring and unfocused speech.

After hearing the speech that night or reading the next day’s political commentary, one could not be blamed for believing that — as has become the unfortunate norm in politics — words would not be followed by actions, and little or nothing would change in D.C.

Yet one would be wrong. Defying all conventions, the president did in fact follow up Wednesday night’s words with actions, but rather one grand, not to mention extremely smart, action. Specifically, he showed up at the House Republican Issues Conference in Baltimore, Md., on Friday — and he went for much more than the crab cakes.

While there, Obama not only took the blame for not living up to his promise of transparent health care negotiations and acknowledged the hurdle that Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s stubbornness can sometimes pose, but also displayed a familiarity with Republican proposals and perspectives that clearly surprised his questioners. Unlike the State of the Union, this was no one-way monologue. Instead, Obama and mostly civil Republicans gave and took, productively discussing both the perils of the permanent campaign and the substantive differences of their parties and priorities.

What’s more, Republicans, to their credit, opened up the encounter to cameras, allowing citizens to see what true political dialogue — so rare in today’s hostile halls of Capitol Hill — really looks like. Also a rarity, the procedure was lauded by media sources from both the left and the right: for example, the Washington Post and the National Review.

Perusing a few political message boards, citizens from both sides seemed to like what they saw as well. Not surprisingly, many self-labeled Democrats declared this the greatest thing since sliced bread and, much more surprisingly, most Republican commenters seemed to generally support the action, too.

“I would pay money to see more of this kind of actual debating in Washington,” wrote “Omnissiah” on www.theatlantic.com. “This 90 minutes was far more instructive and productive than the past [nine] months of health care battles. And I would think the same way even if Obama hadn’t run circles around the House Republicans.”

As “TycheSD” responded, “I have criticized Obama’s big government solutions all year, particularly on health reform, but at least he’s trying to tackle some of the big problems. I’m very encouraged that Obama took these guys on … The people are ready to hear it.”

So perhaps Obama really does want a bipartisan government, and perhaps he can convince Congress to want it, too. More importantly, maybe it can really happen.

Although it was Sen. John McCain who proposed a question session between the president and Congress in the early days of his 2008 campaign — much like the one held each week between the prime minister and Parliament in Britain — there’s no reason why this shouldn’t be adopted as a requirement for each and every American president.

No, I’m not calling for an official constitutional amendment, but who could argue with setting such a tradition in support of the deliberative democracy on which this nation’s government was based?

Faulty accusations and statements from either party would be addressed and proven or disproved, while presidents would be forced to address lawmakers’ concerns by answering questions they would otherwise choose to ignore. No politician would dare miss the event, as doing so would make both their party and themselves look weak, and each party’s experts could intelligently debate the issue up for discussion. American citizens, for their part, would have the opportunity to be exposed to what would not only help them judge their representatives and their president, but also form rational opinions based on substantive debate.

I’d surely watch, wouldn’t you?

Steve Adams is a graduate student in journalism and mass communication from Annapolis, Md.