(no subject)
So, I watched the State of the Union address tonight. While I agree with the general online consensus that the speech could have been better - less bland, to start - in a way I found it comforting. I've only really paid attention to the state of the union in the last ten years or so and George Bush's almost always struck me as speeches that were meant to intimidate about as much as they were meant to inspire. Once you moved on from the flag waving platitudes there was generally a few optimistic notes about our country's progress smothered under a prevailing mood of doom, with Axises of evil and failing schools and whatnot. Obama, on the other hand, always acknowledges problems but also tries to rhetorically push us towards a sort of faith in the future. Perhaps people are tired of the "hope and change" gimmick - but I think that's what a president should be working towards; I don't want a leader who is leading us away from hope, even if that means he's somewhat tied to an anchor of empty rhetoric.
I understand why people don't sympathize with Obama's sense of optimism. Given how many other presidents have promised to move us towards energy independence in the past I don't know that there's any reason to really take Obama's word on the subject, and our education boondoggle isn't going to be nearly as easy to solve as he tried to make it seem like it would be... but all the same, I think that if you go back and look at when people have achieved the most, its been in a climate that was primed for innovation, and I think that the first step towards creating that environment is to set a can-do tone and then to start laying the ground work by trying to create a solid infrastructure for people to draw off of.
And that's the other thing that I think Obama did that Bush didn't: yes, there were a lot of grand declarations in tonight's speech, but Bush was never much of a details guy and there was a lot of talk tonight about the specific parts of the infrastructure that he wanted to streamline and prime for the future. Given that I think the main job of the government is to regulate and protect the public infrastructure that we all have to co-exist in and try to thrive in, it pleases me that he seems to have an interest not just in the problems that are flashy, the problems which are emotionally provocative or the ones he can score the most political points on, but on the little things that are presenting roadblocks to our country's success. The salmon thing was ridiculous, but I understand what he meant to do with that.
The State of the Union is in many ways an outdated tradition, but it does set a tone. And while I have severe doubts about a lot of the things Obama has done, it's refreshing to actually see the man in action. As quick as people are to paint Bush and Obama with the same brush - and as much as I have to grant that a lot of those charges are fair, at least in terms of executive power and the war on terror - there are areas where I think Obama is a lot better. If he can do what he says he wants to do, then I'm on board.
The main reason why his speech seemed bland was that so much of it seemed like common sense - but given where our country seems to be now, common sense might have to do. There are people who are going to rebel at the idea of an America where 80% of our energy comes from clean sources just out of spite and outright denial, even though to me that seems completely unobjectionale - I mean, all other things being equal, why wouldn't you want clean energy over dirty energy? But people still buy Hummers, and people still want us to invade Iran, despite what a mess all of our modern wars have been, and people aren't serious about things I think we have to be serious about, like the deficit and the economy. I'd rather have middle of the road than in a ditch, and I haven't forgotten how close we got to being in that ditch.
I understand why people don't sympathize with Obama's sense of optimism. Given how many other presidents have promised to move us towards energy independence in the past I don't know that there's any reason to really take Obama's word on the subject, and our education boondoggle isn't going to be nearly as easy to solve as he tried to make it seem like it would be... but all the same, I think that if you go back and look at when people have achieved the most, its been in a climate that was primed for innovation, and I think that the first step towards creating that environment is to set a can-do tone and then to start laying the ground work by trying to create a solid infrastructure for people to draw off of.
And that's the other thing that I think Obama did that Bush didn't: yes, there were a lot of grand declarations in tonight's speech, but Bush was never much of a details guy and there was a lot of talk tonight about the specific parts of the infrastructure that he wanted to streamline and prime for the future. Given that I think the main job of the government is to regulate and protect the public infrastructure that we all have to co-exist in and try to thrive in, it pleases me that he seems to have an interest not just in the problems that are flashy, the problems which are emotionally provocative or the ones he can score the most political points on, but on the little things that are presenting roadblocks to our country's success. The salmon thing was ridiculous, but I understand what he meant to do with that.
The State of the Union is in many ways an outdated tradition, but it does set a tone. And while I have severe doubts about a lot of the things Obama has done, it's refreshing to actually see the man in action. As quick as people are to paint Bush and Obama with the same brush - and as much as I have to grant that a lot of those charges are fair, at least in terms of executive power and the war on terror - there are areas where I think Obama is a lot better. If he can do what he says he wants to do, then I'm on board.
The main reason why his speech seemed bland was that so much of it seemed like common sense - but given where our country seems to be now, common sense might have to do. There are people who are going to rebel at the idea of an America where 80% of our energy comes from clean sources just out of spite and outright denial, even though to me that seems completely unobjectionale - I mean, all other things being equal, why wouldn't you want clean energy over dirty energy? But people still buy Hummers, and people still want us to invade Iran, despite what a mess all of our modern wars have been, and people aren't serious about things I think we have to be serious about, like the deficit and the economy. I'd rather have middle of the road than in a ditch, and I haven't forgotten how close we got to being in that ditch.