Short-changed on foreign policy
Barack Obama had much of Congress – mainly Democrats and honourary guests –standing and cheering on Tuesday, Jan. 20, when he gave his yearly State of the Union address. Throughout the entirety of his speech, the Republican attendees had more stern, conservative looks displayed, only applauding or standing when need be.
There were two different speeches on Tuesday night: The first focused on domestic policy that was detailed, precise, and ambitious in a way that also carried a certain swagger. The second focused on foreign policy, which was plagued with vague and short-changed contradictions.
The domestic policy speech was quite good. It highlighted many progressive policies expected from the Democratic party. Closing tax loopholes on the too-rich-for-their-own-good one per cent, providing free community college and affordable child care for struggling families, and moving to provide paid sick leave were all presented in the platform.
These policies show exciting and strong possibility if the Democrats held the Congress, but that is not the case. Republicans hold Congress, and these policies received stone-faced criticism even during the President’s rousing address. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House and a Republican, gave a stark contrast to the lively Joe Biden. Boehner appeared un-amused throughout the evening, and perhaps even more so as President Obama spoke for the hour.
Obama’s brief section on foreign policy was criticized by The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson as “un-ambitious and lacking in detail.” Obama declared the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq over, as well as promising to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State. After acknowledging the attacks on the school in Palestine and the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, Obama kept firm in his stance on hunting down terrorist organizations and individuals, destroying their networks and communicative abilities. What Obama lacked, however, was any specifics for the legislation and policy which would accomplish this all.
President Obama also promised to do everything in his power to deny Iran from nuclear program, but once again, no details or legislation were offered to present the specifics of these actions.
When speaking on Russia and their encroachment on and annexation of neighbouring countries, President Obama stated that America is “upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small – by opposing Russian aggression, and supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies.” This statement has faced some backlash from those critical of American foreign policy, who believe that this presents a contradiction when America is seen as one of the bigger bullies on the playground.
President Obama did briefly mention another form of fatal bullying: the Ferguson and New York cases, and the civil rights issues that have recently come to light. Some criticized Obama for not spending more time and detail on “Black Lives Matter,” but the President addressed these concerns by presenting a focus that looks towards more community trust in local police forces through legislation and reform.
There were, however, some high-points. President Obama’s determination on tackling global warming had shadows of 2008 Obama, advocating for and giving hope, speaking and striding with a certain swagger. The President also spoke of a “better politics,” going past frivolous argument and hate-ads: a politics that seeks to find similarities, not differences; progress, not regress; and build, not stall. This “better politics” seemed to point towards a Congress that is a true bi-partisan effort; inspiring the young, rather than angering them, built upon the practical, rather than the ideological
For most of the night, Republicans were silent, perhaps in part because of ideological differences, but Obama had the whole Congress in stitches with his now-infamous ad-lib, when he reminded everyone: “I have no more campaigns to run. I know because I won both of them.”
Now that Obama has no more campaigns to run, it is up to him to keep to his promises and to keep, as he says, “the State of the Union strong.”