During his fifth State of the Union address, President Obama discussed income inequality, job growth, health care, immigration and more. George Washington Today talked to Chris Arterton, a professor in the Graduate School of Political Management, about the speech and Washington’s political landscape.
Q: What were your general impressions of the State of the Union address? Was there anything the president said that particularly surprised you?
A: It was pretty traditional. It was a wide and thin cover of lots of issues, not a short and focused presentation on a few items that he hopes to get done. Last year the president made 41 requests, and Congress actually passed two of the 41. I haven’t done the count yet, but I suspect the batting average is going to be about the same this year. I think a different strategy might have been employed in a much shorter speech focused on a smaller inventory of things.
There was a lot less on foreign policy, which I think is a good thing. When we conducted the George Washington University Battleground Poll and asked people what they wanted the president to address, the one foreign policy question we asked about was Syria. And that was by far the least desired topic for him to talk about, where the economy and jobs were seen as topics he really ought to concentrate on.
I thought one of the things that was interesting about the address, was how, at the very beginning, the president went through a list of people whose lives have been made better over the past two, four, six years in a variety of ways. He talked about farmers, rural doctors and bus drivers. He tried to establish a real connection with American citizens at that level—he was talking to them and talking about them. I thought that was an interesting way of beginning, rather than saying, “The state of the nation is good.” He talked about it through the instrumentality of citizens’ lives. I think Mr. Obama was trying very hard to assert a kind of common touch.
Q: President Obama echoed some of the comments he made at the college opportunity summit earlier this month, mentioning college affordability and making the connection between higher education and the economy. What do you think about the higher education efforts he discussed?
A: He talked about high-quality education being essential for mobility and some efforts to relieve student loan debt. He also talked about community colleges providing training on the skills that people need for the 21st century. But by and large I thought his focus on education seemed to be more on early childhood education than on colleges and universities. When he did address higher education, he focused on cost and access.
Q: Another higher education topic President Obama touched on was the importance of federally funded research. He called on Congress to fully reverse sequester cuts to research funding. Do you think that is actually going to happen?
A: I think that may be one of the 39 topics that Congress does not address. It seems to me, at least in the field of political science, that Congress actually seems to be to be moving in exactly in the opposite direction and cutting research funding.
Q: Might any of the president’s talking points translate into policy?
A: While they have different approaches, judging by the response, it seems that something on immigration is likely to pass the House. The president mentioned the farm bill, which appears to be on track to finally get through. Because of the stalemate that occurred as a result of the shutdown and the lessons learned there, I think we’re going to see a bit more cooperation between the parties and between the House and the Senate—things like piecemeal immigration reform. But I don’t expect any large issues, like tax reform for example, to get through.
Q: During last year’s State of the Union address, the president made very emotional and impassioned comments about gun control. This year, the topic was only briefly mentioned. What may have contributed to this choice?
A: I think Mr. Obama is a realist, and I think he recognizes that despite the events in Newtown and some of the national push for legislation, nothing happened. And if it didn’t happen after that, then it’s unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. I think he decided to cut his losses and talk about the things he thinks might actually get done or things that put the Democrats in a good light.
I thought, in general, we saw a more conciliatory and moderate president last night than we did a year ago. Gone were a lot of the liberal proposals that he had annunciated after his election. I think he was giving cover, or at least not raising a lot of issues that could be used against members of his party in their reelections.
Q: Fifty-six percent of those polled in the GW Battleground Poll said the nation needed to hear a list of detailed policy proposals during the State of the Union address. Did Americans receive those proposals?
A: Yes. He did give a list of policy proposals and minimized the kind of inspirational, soaring rhetoric that he is so capable of delivering. We got a little bit of that at the end of the speech, but by and large it was a speech that concentrated on a laundry list of items the president wants to get done. One quibble is that he just touched on issues without giving much detail.
Q: What did you think of the Republican rebuttal?
A: It was not the strongest of rebuttals, given that it seemed to be bound by a lot of rhetoric. “Government, government, government—we want to do things without the government.” We kept hearing that. Similar to President Obama, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., tried to establish a common connection to the American people by talking about her son who has Down syndrome, growing up on a farm, etc.
Q: During his speech, the president introduced Cory Remsburg, an Army ranger severely injured by a roadside bomb during his 10th deployment in Afghanistan who was unable to stand on his own during the address. It was a genuine moment that seemed to unite everyone in the packed chamber. What are your thoughts?
A: It was by far the longest and loudest sustained applause. It went on for at least a minute. I think it’s kind of a difficult connection to draw—that on the one hand he’s saying, “Our wars are over,” and on the other hand he’s lauding the kind of military defense posture that the nation needs. He brought those two things together by citing the example of this one veteran.