Post Game On SOTU: Obama Redefines Success
Comments (1)
Following President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address, Neon Tommy reporter Callie Schweitzer talked with USC Annenberg clinical associate professor Gordon Stables, an expert in political communication, argumentation and debate.
What's your takeaway from the speech? Which part stuck out to you the most?
I think the two most important things are the emphasis on jobs over a specific type of health care reform and the second is a broad tone of looking for results rather than the specific democratic agenda. I think those are the two biggest items that jump out immediately after the speech.
What will the public takeaway be?
I think given the length and the emphasis, for people that are looking for him to demonstrate results, I think he was setting a broad list of items that he could point to in one year, two years, three years, by identifying a number of areas that they were hoping to make progress on in the next few years. Jobs, deficit reduction, banking reform, there are a series of things he can point to in one to two to three years.
I think it was important for President Obama to begin to change the way people look at the success or failure of his administration. There were a number of specific things that people may be more interested in. I think the biggest policy proposal that was surprising before today was the announcement to remove the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. For folks that would identify themselves as very liberal that's an important campaign item that they thought fell off the radar. The report is that Secretary Gates clapped during that section (the DADT policy) which, if true, is a very significant indicator of what might happen with that policy.
The length of the speech also means different folks will be taking different parts of it away. Most presidents don't give longer than an hour SOTU so it was a little uncommon for this length. I think that will splinter part of that reaction given that it started at 9 p.m on the East Coast and went over an hour. Jobs, the state of the economy and banks were the largest points of emphasis. Then the specific issues of health care and the DADT policy got less time but may be as important in the media coverage and in the popular discussion of the speech.
Was it a success?
Given the polarized nature of the electorate I think it will be a success in terms of reenergizing people that supported the president. I'm not sure despite the conservative history of some of the policies--the freeze on discretionary spending--I'm not sure how many Republicans will be supportive of the president, but I do think the speech will have an affect on reminding the people who voted for President Obama on why they did and maybe give him more time to work through his agenda.
What was risky?
Two sets of things--the early tone about the stimulus was very surprising because it was a dramatic departure from the narrative of the stimulus package. He described the stimulus as important but bad tasting medicine--important but you have to take it to get better. And really it was a dramatic change from the way it's been described in the media and how it's described by politicians. He very much owned it.
Second, he was very strategic in his use of when the applause was supposed to happen and in building his tone. He was building a serious tone early on in the speech and took a very somber approach toward the end. The way he attempted to work with the audience reaction was probably a little bit of a reaction to Rep. Wilson's outburst last year. Especially the last 2 to 3 minutes of the speech is very striking in its return to some of the campaign's themes and style. That's a really significant item.
Will this speech make up for Obama's perceived shortcomings and instill hope in the future?
I think there will be a lot of skepticism about the shifting emphasis from health care to jobs. I imagine a lot of individuals watching the speech were curious to see how President Obama was going to lead on the health care reform question. I don't think the speech is going to reassure many people who want to see a quick success of the health care policy. More broadly, people who supported the president will see a lot more of the candidate Obama in the speech. But for people who supported health care, that may be something they're disappointed in in the speech.
Were there any glaring omissions from Obama's speech? What didn't he say?
More broadly it will be questions of emphasis. He mentioned immigration reform, but it wasn't a point of emphasis. In this kind of speech there are more issues that are mentioned rather than emphasized or that really become major legislative items or legislative priorities.
In today's world, most of us knew several of the key issues Obama was going to discuss two days before the speech was given. How does this affect public opinion?
There was a fantastic Gallup survey released yesterday that studies the long view of SOTU speeches, and they find that in most contexts SOTU speeches do not produce a change in views of the president. The broader role is the way the president changes or doesn't change the narrative of what's happening. The speech literally is their narrative of what is happening in the country or the state of the union. Instead of seeing poll shifts, what you'll see is the way it influences the legislation on banking, if it influences the way the fall campaigns are run and the agendas are set. Even in our hyper-mediated age the president is the only person who commands an hour of uninterrupted time.
