Last night’s speech offered a realistic and encouraging vision of the future. It was delivered in a statesmanlike tone, was partisan in the best sense of the term – substantive, specific, based on conviction – yet its delivery addressed its primary opponent in a pointedly respectful, exemplary fashion.
On substance, it was also a serious speech.
Anchored upon one Big Idea, tax reform based on a flattened tax code – i.e. a decipherable, transparent tax system that’s harder to exploit, avoid or lobby – this speech took the initiative in shaping the urgently overdue conversation American politics is failing to have: How can America fund its future in a way that is fair to all, shares benefits among all but also demands sacrifice from all?
A flattened tax code is an argument with many flaws but it’s at least an argument, particularly in this era of perfectly rational left and right wing popular anger, that offers a new and workable response to core fiscal and even core legitimacy questions.
It’s a shame then, at least for this Obama supporter, that it was delivered by Mitch Daniels as a rebuttal to President Obama’s STOU.
In contrast, President Obama’s State of the Union speech was designed to induce supporters like this one into reacting like a kid who in the run-up to Christmas morning, receives a letter of intent from Santa; a promise that all the goodies are available but we need to bill the rich neighbour’s tab.
Liberals and progressives may disagree; of course – they’ll argue – the 2012 SOTU was an election year speech written by focus groups for (progressive) lobby groups. Isn’t this reasonable and rational?
Yes – if your name is President Hillary Clinton and your base is heavily dependent on the working poor and middle class. And you actually believe that the problem with a rigged tax code is less the rigging and more the beneficiaries.
But this was President Obama’s SOTU. Hillary Clinton was defeated, was she not, by the promise – and promises – of the self-styled Transformation President?
Obama may have little to fear from nominee Gingrich and clearly this speech was designed to hobble the poster star of the One Percenters: Mr 13%, Mitt Romney. But when the transformative rhetoric – and substance – is coming from the GOP’s Mitch Daniels it’s a bit, well, disappointing.
But, at least long term, there’s reason to be encouraged too. Roll on 2016.
Strategic Communications Consultant, located in Washington, D.C.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
