No, I did not watch the State of the Union address last night. It has been several years since I watched one of these extravaganzas. I think it was during one of President Clinton's SOTU speeches that I vowed I would never watch another one. The man never ran out of things to say, and he never read Shakespeare's advice that "brevity is the soul of wit." After an hour, it's time to rest your vocal chords and let your television audience go to bed.
My decision to ignore the live coverage of last night's speech had almost nothing to do with President Trump. Presidents come and presidents go, but State of the Union speeches go on forever (it seems) and rarely ever are consequential.
Having read various accounts of Trump's speech, I have a pretty good idea of what he said without staying up past my bedtime or sitting impatiently through applause lines, pauses and showmanship the annual address has become.
I feel sufficiently informed about what Trump said that I can confidently say that the president outdid himself. He did so by carefully sticking to the script on the Teleprompter and avoiding his habitual personal attacks, belligerence and insults to individuals or groups. Hooray for that. He has the capacity to appear presidential, which he has done before, but always before he has squandered his improved status by going on Twitter tirades that bring out his worst instincts.
I don't think President Trump has turned over a new leaf with this speech, but if he were able to parlay this mostly reasonable speech about policy and priorities, he might actually salvage his presidency and his party's chances in the 2018 congressional and state elections. Don't bet on it. Men in their 70s don't change their basic personalities and tactics.
It is Trump's caustic language, his profanity, his racial and ethnic insults and his endorsement of sexual misbehavior that most trouble voters. His policy endeavors, including taxes, deregulation and immigration, have substantial support among the electorate. Maybe not a majority, but substantial. But even many who agree with Trump on policy are disgusted by his profanity, his insults, his score-settling and his lack of sympathy for others.
Unless he can change these flaws — his basic makeup — his presidency and his party's future will be in jeopardy.
Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State of the Union. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Monday, January 19, 2015
State of the Union is just another campaign speech
When President Obama delivers his State of the Union speech tomorrow night, he will have something to prove. It's something he has proven again and again over the course of his presidency: Obama is a campaigner, not a legislator.
Already leaked to the press are his initiatives to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut tax rates for lower-income and establish new federal programs for higher education and early childhood education. He will make the point that these are good and needed programs, that the lower and middle classes have missed out on the economic recovery of the past couple of years. It's their turn now, he might say (but won't, not in those words).
The problem is that he will be speaking to a Congress dominated by Republicans. The GOP hold large majorities on both sides of the Capitol, and they are unlikely to be persuaded by rhetoric extolling Democratic Party priorities. In fact, it can be argued that Obama knows these initiatives stand no chance in Congress and his announcements are aimed at getting the GOP majority on the record opposing these programs. Democrats expect these proposals to play well in the 2016 elections.
The State of the Union (surprise, surprise) is nothing more than a campaign speech, as it has been for at least 30 years. The way to get ambitious new programs into law is not by embarrassing congressional opponents into voting against your ideas. The way to get legislation passed is to work with Congress, to convince skeptics of the correctness of your ideas and the practicality of your programs.
I have seen nothing so far in Obama's proposal that will appeal to Republicans. He proposes paying for these programs by raising taxes on the wealthy, and part of those higher taxes will go to reduce taxes on low-income taxpayers. But already, many Americans pay little or no federal income tax, and the GOP has made tax cuts its all-powerful Excalibur. Good arguments can be made for some of Obama's taxation proposals — a higher tax on capital gains is unlikely to harm economic activity, and the estate tax (which opponents disingenuously call a "death tax" — the tax is on inheritance, not on death, and applies only to the largest of estates) is a realistic assurance against the stratifying influence of inherited wealth.
But Obama is not making an effort to persuade his opponents, as Lyndon Johnson would have done; he is only creating talking points for the next electoral campaign. He is campaigning, not leading the nation. This strategy is what we deserve as a country that expects presidential candidates to spend two or three arduous years seeking the presidency, honing skills of false empathy and subtle (or not so subtle) vile attacks on opponents' character. We have created this monster, or have allowed political consultants to create it.
Already leaked to the press are his initiatives to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut tax rates for lower-income and establish new federal programs for higher education and early childhood education. He will make the point that these are good and needed programs, that the lower and middle classes have missed out on the economic recovery of the past couple of years. It's their turn now, he might say (but won't, not in those words).
The problem is that he will be speaking to a Congress dominated by Republicans. The GOP hold large majorities on both sides of the Capitol, and they are unlikely to be persuaded by rhetoric extolling Democratic Party priorities. In fact, it can be argued that Obama knows these initiatives stand no chance in Congress and his announcements are aimed at getting the GOP majority on the record opposing these programs. Democrats expect these proposals to play well in the 2016 elections.
The State of the Union (surprise, surprise) is nothing more than a campaign speech, as it has been for at least 30 years. The way to get ambitious new programs into law is not by embarrassing congressional opponents into voting against your ideas. The way to get legislation passed is to work with Congress, to convince skeptics of the correctness of your ideas and the practicality of your programs.
I have seen nothing so far in Obama's proposal that will appeal to Republicans. He proposes paying for these programs by raising taxes on the wealthy, and part of those higher taxes will go to reduce taxes on low-income taxpayers. But already, many Americans pay little or no federal income tax, and the GOP has made tax cuts its all-powerful Excalibur. Good arguments can be made for some of Obama's taxation proposals — a higher tax on capital gains is unlikely to harm economic activity, and the estate tax (which opponents disingenuously call a "death tax" — the tax is on inheritance, not on death, and applies only to the largest of estates) is a realistic assurance against the stratifying influence of inherited wealth.
But Obama is not making an effort to persuade his opponents, as Lyndon Johnson would have done; he is only creating talking points for the next electoral campaign. He is campaigning, not leading the nation. This strategy is what we deserve as a country that expects presidential candidates to spend two or three arduous years seeking the presidency, honing skills of false empathy and subtle (or not so subtle) vile attacks on opponents' character. We have created this monster, or have allowed political consultants to create it.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Global economy haunts American workers
Throughout much of President Obama's State of the Union address last night, I kept thinking back to the article I had just read in the current issue of The Atlantic, "The Rise of the Global Elite." Obama's talk of competitiveness and education and seizing opportunities sounded contrary to, or uninformed about, the dire warnings contained in Chrystia Freeland's disturbing article.
It's a long and complex article touching on many aspects of the modern world economy, but it boils down to this: Multiple trends are creating a vast gap between a relative handful of global plutocrats — men and women who owe little or no allegiance to any one nation or economic system and who are acquiring vast private wealth virtually unheard of in world history — and the rest of us, including particularly the American middle class. This tectonic shift in the economy preceded the Great Recession of the past couple of years, but the current mess of high unemployment, depressed consumer spending and soaring government debt is worsening and speeding up the long-term trend. All Americans, except for the minuscule number of global elites, will be negatively affected. In a real sense, these new elite are not Americans, nor are they Europeans or Asians. They are residents of the world, working in nations and cultures where the most opportunity arises. In recent decades, the biggest opportunities have been in developing nations, particularly India and China.
In a world of free trade, in which tariffs and import quotas are scorned and derided, the cards are stacked against American workers, who reigned supreme through most of the second half of the 20th century. But the new global economy has changed everything. Freeland quotes one anonymous global executive as saying American workers are accustomed to earning 50 times the wage rate of other workers (think Chinese and Indians), but the only way they can demand that sort of wage disparity today is to be 50 times more productive. That, of course, is not going to happen. New technology, transportation advances and trade policies make it feasible to transfer manufacturing anywhere in the world, and that means to the place where wages are lowest.
Without a doubt, the global revolution in technology and trade have had its benefits. I recently stumbled across the receipt for a television I bought in 1988. It was the first remote-control TV we owned. I paid $288 for a 19-inch TV (which I gave away to Habitat for Humanity a couple of years ago). For $288 today, I can buy a much larger, more sophisticated flat-screen television that makes my 1988 TV and its $288 price laughable. But the shrinking prices of consumer electronics and other products carry a large cost: Consumer electronics are not made in America by American workers making middle-class wages. Those jobs have disappeared, and the service jobs, government jobs and nonprofit jobs that have arisen to fill the gaps cannot sustain an economy.
The global economy, pressed by the new global elite, is pushing down American wages, eliminating American jobs and, in the long term, forcing a fundamental readjustment of American standards of living. One day this recession (which is officially over) will end, but the American economy will not be the same. Unless the president and Congress find a way to change the rules of global trade and economics, American workers will see their lifestyles gradually and inevitably decline, no matter how much we invest in education and competitivenes.
It's a long and complex article touching on many aspects of the modern world economy, but it boils down to this: Multiple trends are creating a vast gap between a relative handful of global plutocrats — men and women who owe little or no allegiance to any one nation or economic system and who are acquiring vast private wealth virtually unheard of in world history — and the rest of us, including particularly the American middle class. This tectonic shift in the economy preceded the Great Recession of the past couple of years, but the current mess of high unemployment, depressed consumer spending and soaring government debt is worsening and speeding up the long-term trend. All Americans, except for the minuscule number of global elites, will be negatively affected. In a real sense, these new elite are not Americans, nor are they Europeans or Asians. They are residents of the world, working in nations and cultures where the most opportunity arises. In recent decades, the biggest opportunities have been in developing nations, particularly India and China.
In a world of free trade, in which tariffs and import quotas are scorned and derided, the cards are stacked against American workers, who reigned supreme through most of the second half of the 20th century. But the new global economy has changed everything. Freeland quotes one anonymous global executive as saying American workers are accustomed to earning 50 times the wage rate of other workers (think Chinese and Indians), but the only way they can demand that sort of wage disparity today is to be 50 times more productive. That, of course, is not going to happen. New technology, transportation advances and trade policies make it feasible to transfer manufacturing anywhere in the world, and that means to the place where wages are lowest.
Without a doubt, the global revolution in technology and trade have had its benefits. I recently stumbled across the receipt for a television I bought in 1988. It was the first remote-control TV we owned. I paid $288 for a 19-inch TV (which I gave away to Habitat for Humanity a couple of years ago). For $288 today, I can buy a much larger, more sophisticated flat-screen television that makes my 1988 TV and its $288 price laughable. But the shrinking prices of consumer electronics and other products carry a large cost: Consumer electronics are not made in America by American workers making middle-class wages. Those jobs have disappeared, and the service jobs, government jobs and nonprofit jobs that have arisen to fill the gaps cannot sustain an economy.
The global economy, pressed by the new global elite, is pushing down American wages, eliminating American jobs and, in the long term, forcing a fundamental readjustment of American standards of living. One day this recession (which is officially over) will end, but the American economy will not be the same. Unless the president and Congress find a way to change the rules of global trade and economics, American workers will see their lifestyles gradually and inevitably decline, no matter how much we invest in education and competitivenes.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Time for the State of the Union PowerPoint
Good evening and welcome to TNN's coverage of the State of the Union PowerPoint. The Sergeant-at-Arms is carrying the president's laptop into the House Chamber. "Madame Speaker, the president of the United States. Please dim the lights!"
The president is opening his laptop and booting up his PowerPoint presentation. There — the first slide just appeared on the big screen hanging from the balcony railing. There's another screen behind the podium simultaneously showing the PowerPoint from the presidential laptop.
"You know, Tom, there's been some talk about changing the venue for this event next year to Cowboy Stadium, which has the world's largest video screen."
But who wants 90,000 screaming political groupies at a State of the Union PowerPoint?
"You're right, Tom. This is so much better here in the Capitol's empty House Chamber with just the president and his IT czar and his laptop. It's so much quieter than in the old days when the president gave a speech. And all those silly interruptions and standing ovations! How did we ever stand it?"
It's the march of technology. The PowerPoint presentation has supplanted the Teleprompter.
"And we're glad it has."
The president's hand is on the mouse and he's ready to start his presentation.
"Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, Honored Guests: On this slide you see that the State of the Union is strong. While other nations would like to supplant the United States of America by force of arms or by unfair trade practices or by technological innovation, you just can't beat a PowerPoint presentation."
Oh! That's a nice touch! The president has segued to a slide of members of Congress giving a standing ovation.
"I wonder when that little video was shot! Oh! And look, he's Photoshopped in a couple of guests in the crowd. There's Bill Gates applauding."
And look who's sitting beside him. Isn't that Steve Jobs?
"Thank you, but let's go to the next slide. America's future depends upon education, and tonight I am proposing a new $500 billion initiative to put computers in every classroom throughout this nation. When this initiative is complete, every child in America will be able to see the same PowerPoint presentation at the same time in each and every class throughout this great nation. We call it No Slide Left Behind. The cost of this program will be offset by savings resulting from eliminating the need for teachers. We'll be able to use service animals to click the mouse and advance the slides."
With this next slide, the president is showing his commitment to controlling spending. Instead of flying all these special guests to Washington to sit in the balcony and wave to the camera when the president calls their name, the president is showing a slide of each special guest, along with a brief bio, so he doesn't even have to name them or explain them.
"That's a nice touch. He's really taking advantage of the technology to save taxes."
... And that's the end of the PowerPoint, coming in at just 11 minutes after he entered the chamber. That's a lot better use of time than the usual 70 or 80 minutes presidents wasted when they gave speeches to Congress.
"It's so much more efficient these days."
And our instant poll results are in. Americans like the PowerPoint State of the Union much better than the old-style speeches. They preferred PowerPoint by a margin of 42 percent to 9 percent over speeches. The other 49 percent wanted to eliminate the whole shebang. Good night, Dan.
"Good night, Tom."
And don't forget that this presentation is downloadable from WhiteHouse.gov or from iTunes. Good night from TNN.
The president is opening his laptop and booting up his PowerPoint presentation. There — the first slide just appeared on the big screen hanging from the balcony railing. There's another screen behind the podium simultaneously showing the PowerPoint from the presidential laptop.
"You know, Tom, there's been some talk about changing the venue for this event next year to Cowboy Stadium, which has the world's largest video screen."
But who wants 90,000 screaming political groupies at a State of the Union PowerPoint?
"You're right, Tom. This is so much better here in the Capitol's empty House Chamber with just the president and his IT czar and his laptop. It's so much quieter than in the old days when the president gave a speech. And all those silly interruptions and standing ovations! How did we ever stand it?"
It's the march of technology. The PowerPoint presentation has supplanted the Teleprompter.
"And we're glad it has."
The president's hand is on the mouse and he's ready to start his presentation.
"Madame Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, Honored Guests: On this slide you see that the State of the Union is strong. While other nations would like to supplant the United States of America by force of arms or by unfair trade practices or by technological innovation, you just can't beat a PowerPoint presentation."
Oh! That's a nice touch! The president has segued to a slide of members of Congress giving a standing ovation.
"I wonder when that little video was shot! Oh! And look, he's Photoshopped in a couple of guests in the crowd. There's Bill Gates applauding."
And look who's sitting beside him. Isn't that Steve Jobs?
"Thank you, but let's go to the next slide. America's future depends upon education, and tonight I am proposing a new $500 billion initiative to put computers in every classroom throughout this nation. When this initiative is complete, every child in America will be able to see the same PowerPoint presentation at the same time in each and every class throughout this great nation. We call it No Slide Left Behind. The cost of this program will be offset by savings resulting from eliminating the need for teachers. We'll be able to use service animals to click the mouse and advance the slides."
With this next slide, the president is showing his commitment to controlling spending. Instead of flying all these special guests to Washington to sit in the balcony and wave to the camera when the president calls their name, the president is showing a slide of each special guest, along with a brief bio, so he doesn't even have to name them or explain them.
"That's a nice touch. He's really taking advantage of the technology to save taxes."
... And that's the end of the PowerPoint, coming in at just 11 minutes after he entered the chamber. That's a lot better use of time than the usual 70 or 80 minutes presidents wasted when they gave speeches to Congress.
"It's so much more efficient these days."
And our instant poll results are in. Americans like the PowerPoint State of the Union much better than the old-style speeches. They preferred PowerPoint by a margin of 42 percent to 9 percent over speeches. The other 49 percent wanted to eliminate the whole shebang. Good night, Dan.
"Good night, Tom."
And don't forget that this presentation is downloadable from WhiteHouse.gov or from iTunes. Good night from TNN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
