Obama Delivers A Confrontational State Of The Union Address.The Chairman opened a debate on the election-year role of government, drawing contrasts with Republicans on taxes for the rich and mortgage refinancing.
Using his State of the Union speech to draw contrasts with Republicans on these high-profile issues such as taxes and the housing market, President Obama has opened a debate on election years the role of government could be more intense than any in decades.
Warning Congress that "I intend to fight against the obstruction to action", he painted a picture of confrontation that contrasts sharply with the conciliatory approach adopted by the last Democrat to run for a second term, Bill Clinton.
In fact, the Obama strategy is more like that of George W. Bushin 2004, which used polarizing issues to increase the participation of his supporters and made some concessions to the center. The approach increases the likelihood that if he wins a second term, Obama could claim a mandate for his program. It also carries more risk of failure in a nation still deeply skeptical of government activism.
Only a few months ago, many voters seemed on the verge of writing off Obama. But in recent weeks, two developments have given him a chance to ask those voters for another look. One is the economy, which began to show signs of improvement - the decline in unemployment, consumer confidence and rising levels of household debt reduced. The other is how the Republican primary race has recently focused on the immense wealth (and the relatively low tax burden) of the game, sometimes front-runner, Mitt Romney.
Obama leads directly to the issue of wealth with the proposal of the signing of his speech: ". Fair share "of a minimum tax for millionaires who were part of his appeal to all Americans pay for their proposal, requiring that people with incomes over $ 1 million to pay at least 30% tax would be ideally - administration officials insist coincidence - double the tax that Romney made last year, according to the tax return of the former Massachusetts governor issued earlier in the day.
Similarly, the other's speech important domestic proposal - a plan to make more mortgage refinancing available to homeowners who owe more than the value of their homes "- would be to insert the government more directly in the housing market.
Republicans have flatly rejected a tax increase on those them term "job creators." And they called on the federal government out of the housing market entirely, saying that federal involvement is that the crisis foreclosure of the country worse.
They also lost time in rejecting Obama's premise of conflict of interests of the middle class and the wealthiest citizens of America. "We do not accept that ours will never be a nation of haves and have-nots, we must always be a nation of haves and soon-to-haves," Indiana, Mitch Daniels, the governor said in his Republican response. He accused Obama of "extremism" and called for lower tax rates.
Like Clinton, Obama seeks re-election after a defeat at mid-term change of scenery in which the Republicans took control of the House. The two Democrats delivered their election Year State of the Union speech after months of bruising clashes with Congress in which they tried - with some success - to paint Republicans as extremists.
But Clinton has sought to co-opt the rhetoric of the GOP, memorably declaring at the beginning of his speech that "the era of big government is over." And even if he used the power of his office to block the efforts of many Republicans to roll back government, it has largely set aside his own plans to expand its reach in areas like health care. By blurring the contrast between him and the Republican Party, Clinton has been a frustrating elusive target, but set up a campaign that avoided the most important problems.
The difference between the approach of Obama and Clinton reflects the personality of both men, but also time.
Clinton, for all the adulation he receives now from the left, came into national policy are trying to break the hold that the liberal interest groups had on his party and to criticize what he calls the "brain death policies of both parties.”Obama, for all his professed desire to create a" post-partisan "political culture, has a more liberal tradition in particular.
More importantly, the political center to which Clinton nailed so eroded in 16 years that Mr. Obama would probably not follow the model of Clinton, even if he wanted.
American political parties have grown more polarized. The Democrats have moved slightly to the left, Republicans have moved many steps to the right, according to political scientists who analyzed the votes of Congress, questions and data from voting machines. Political ideas that there are only a decade characterized the conservative side of the great debates - a mandate that individuals buy health insurance on a regulated market, for example, or a "cap and trade" to limit pollution - are now flayed by the Republicans.
During the past year, in which he tried and failed to reach a "grand bargain" with the Republicans on the federal budget, Obama has learned painfully how little land remains in the political center.
"Obama knows he has 44% of the electorate" to start, and in a country as divided as the United States, "44% is a lot," said Peter Hart, the Democratic pollster. He decided "I'll keep these people on board, then we'll go after everybody."
Get the rest of the way to persuade a majority depends on a handful of crucial voters in the middle who are pulled in two directions.
On the one hand, voters - including those who call themselves independent - have a vision deeply skeptical of the government and its ability to help them. Less than a third of voters have a positive view of the size and power of the federal government, a proportion that has fallen steadily since the early years of the Bush presidency, according to a series of Gallup polls.
At the same time, pollsters have found a significant and rapid increase in the percentage of people who doubt the republican idea that America has no class divisions. In 2009, a majority of Republicans and Independents said they saw little or no conflict between rich and poor, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. Now, over two-thirds of Americans, including those of independent voters say they think such conflicts are "strong" or "very strong".
In the balance between skepticism of government and the recognition of class conflict, the 2012 elections could be determined.
Using his State of the Union speech to draw contrasts with Republicans on these high-profile issues such as taxes and the housing market, President Obama has opened a debate on election years the role of government could be more intense than any in decades.
Warning Congress that "I intend to fight against the obstruction to action", he painted a picture of confrontation that contrasts sharply with the conciliatory approach adopted by the last Democrat to run for a second term, Bill Clinton.
In fact, the Obama strategy is more like that of George W. Bushin 2004, which used polarizing issues to increase the participation of his supporters and made some concessions to the center. The approach increases the likelihood that if he wins a second term, Obama could claim a mandate for his program. It also carries more risk of failure in a nation still deeply skeptical of government activism.
Only a few months ago, many voters seemed on the verge of writing off Obama. But in recent weeks, two developments have given him a chance to ask those voters for another look. One is the economy, which began to show signs of improvement - the decline in unemployment, consumer confidence and rising levels of household debt reduced. The other is how the Republican primary race has recently focused on the immense wealth (and the relatively low tax burden) of the game, sometimes front-runner, Mitt Romney.
Obama leads directly to the issue of wealth with the proposal of the signing of his speech: ". Fair share "of a minimum tax for millionaires who were part of his appeal to all Americans pay for their proposal, requiring that people with incomes over $ 1 million to pay at least 30% tax would be ideally - administration officials insist coincidence - double the tax that Romney made last year, according to the tax return of the former Massachusetts governor issued earlier in the day.
Similarly, the other's speech important domestic proposal - a plan to make more mortgage refinancing available to homeowners who owe more than the value of their homes "- would be to insert the government more directly in the housing market.
Republicans have flatly rejected a tax increase on those them term "job creators." And they called on the federal government out of the housing market entirely, saying that federal involvement is that the crisis foreclosure of the country worse.
They also lost time in rejecting Obama's premise of conflict of interests of the middle class and the wealthiest citizens of America. "We do not accept that ours will never be a nation of haves and have-nots, we must always be a nation of haves and soon-to-haves," Indiana, Mitch Daniels, the governor said in his Republican response. He accused Obama of "extremism" and called for lower tax rates.
Like Clinton, Obama seeks re-election after a defeat at mid-term change of scenery in which the Republicans took control of the House. The two Democrats delivered their election Year State of the Union speech after months of bruising clashes with Congress in which they tried - with some success - to paint Republicans as extremists.
But Clinton has sought to co-opt the rhetoric of the GOP, memorably declaring at the beginning of his speech that "the era of big government is over." And even if he used the power of his office to block the efforts of many Republicans to roll back government, it has largely set aside his own plans to expand its reach in areas like health care. By blurring the contrast between him and the Republican Party, Clinton has been a frustrating elusive target, but set up a campaign that avoided the most important problems.
The difference between the approach of Obama and Clinton reflects the personality of both men, but also time.
Clinton, for all the adulation he receives now from the left, came into national policy are trying to break the hold that the liberal interest groups had on his party and to criticize what he calls the "brain death policies of both parties.”Obama, for all his professed desire to create a" post-partisan "political culture, has a more liberal tradition in particular.
More importantly, the political center to which Clinton nailed so eroded in 16 years that Mr. Obama would probably not follow the model of Clinton, even if he wanted.
American political parties have grown more polarized. The Democrats have moved slightly to the left, Republicans have moved many steps to the right, according to political scientists who analyzed the votes of Congress, questions and data from voting machines. Political ideas that there are only a decade characterized the conservative side of the great debates - a mandate that individuals buy health insurance on a regulated market, for example, or a "cap and trade" to limit pollution - are now flayed by the Republicans.
During the past year, in which he tried and failed to reach a "grand bargain" with the Republicans on the federal budget, Obama has learned painfully how little land remains in the political center.
"Obama knows he has 44% of the electorate" to start, and in a country as divided as the United States, "44% is a lot," said Peter Hart, the Democratic pollster. He decided "I'll keep these people on board, then we'll go after everybody."
Get the rest of the way to persuade a majority depends on a handful of crucial voters in the middle who are pulled in two directions.
On the one hand, voters - including those who call themselves independent - have a vision deeply skeptical of the government and its ability to help them. Less than a third of voters have a positive view of the size and power of the federal government, a proportion that has fallen steadily since the early years of the Bush presidency, according to a series of Gallup polls.
At the same time, pollsters have found a significant and rapid increase in the percentage of people who doubt the republican idea that America has no class divisions. In 2009, a majority of Republicans and Independents said they saw little or no conflict between rich and poor, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center. Now, over two-thirds of Americans, including those of independent voters say they think such conflicts are "strong" or "very strong".
In the balance between skepticism of government and the recognition of class conflict, the 2012 elections could be determined.
0 comments:
Post a Comment