President Obama's State of the Union is an attempted reassertion of presidential leadership.
As is the case for all presidents in their first year who don't have to face a major tragic event like 9/11, President Obama's approval numbers had dropped significantly from where they were when he took office. Despite media reports to the contrary, it is not Independents who are driving down President Obama's numbers, it is Republicans.
When presidents take office, some folks in the other party give the new person a fighting chance. As the new president begins advocating the agenda from the campaign trail, the folks in the other party remember why they don't like the president and begin to no longer approve of the president's job performance.
A sagging economy is no help either. President Obama wanted use the address to hit the reset button on the issue of his ability to get things done (his approval rating is 48%), but wanted to continue feeding the public's evaluation of him personally (67% of Americans think he is a strong leader).
Remarkably, there is good evidence that the issues the president discusses in the State of the Union are issues that the public will continue to find important for several months after the speech. One reason is that the president acts as an agenda-setter for the public. Another is that presidents are skilled politicians and are sure to discuss issues they know that the public wants their president and Congress to deal with in the coming year. So, President Obama's focus on jobs was probably caused in some measure by the public's desire for him to focus on jobs and his focus on jobs will likely keep the public tuned in to that issue for months to come.
Remember that many of the folks who used to approve of the president are Republicans, not Independents or Democrats. As such, President Obama littered the State of the Union with mid-level policy proposals that moderate Republicans might like: small business tax incentives, nuclear power, and the like.
At the same time, he wanted to make sure that his base does not abandon him; after all, they were crucial to his election. This is why he mentioned his desire to do things that progressive liberals like such as ending "don't ask, don't tell," ending the war in Iraq, stopping torture, and continuing to advocate for health care reform.
It is my hypothesis that this speech was the first step in beginning the political narrative the president and his party will use during the 2010 elections: there are lots of mid-range, highly popular things the president wants to do, but the Republicans in Congress are blocking him at every turn.
Mr. Obama directly called out the GOP leadership in his speech; this was probably less directed at the GOP leaders than it was at the American people as it will be a tough sell to blame the minority party for a lack of legislative success when the president's party has, as he noted in the State of the Union, historically strong majorities in both houses of Congress.
One thing that is important for the citizenry to keep in mind is that the framers designed change to be slow and as our institutions and parties have strengthened, change is even harder to come by than it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. The president is not a king and no amount of "effort" at trying to persuade legislators to do his bidding is likely to be successful. What is successful is the kind of political dealmaking that Americans tend to find distasteful, as evidenced by the reactions to the wheeling and dealing surrounding health care reform.
In the end, it is likely that when the president gives this speech next year, the economy will be much stronger, unemployment will be lower than 10% and his party will have sustained losses in the midterm elections while still maintaining their majorities in both houses.
Michael W. Wagner
