Obama and the State of the Union

The author is Secretary General of the Arab National Forum.

The State of the Union speech of U.S. President Barack Obama is a worthy lesson to reflect on the weakness in the ruling political establishment and the state of overall decline of the status of the U.S. This does not mean that the U.S. is on the verge of collapse, for it still has viable political and social cohesion, although a continued state of disintegration might lead to collapse if not remedied.

How did the president’s speech come across? In regards to the delivery, the president’s performance was good compared to the American standard. His delivery was not cold and exalted; instead, he dispelled some of the critique about the “superior” president who avoids the concerns of the people with humor and humanity. He also dispelled the picture of a man hesitating to make difficult decisions; more than once, he warned Congress — especially the Republican Party — about the offense of not cooperating with him in adopting certain projects. Also, through his tactical speech, he encouraged his Democratic base, to a large extent, to broadcast some optimism for the future of frustrated American citizens. This was not a speech as radiant as the one he gave at the Democratic National Conference in 2008, though the speech was not boring. He was humble in his ambitions but resolute regarding what he wants to achieve during the coming year, which he called a year of movement and work — alluding to the fact that the congressional channel disrupted many of the legal initiatives of the last year. The American president was modest in proposing an agenda for work in the year 2014, an embarrassment for the Republican Party, which has had no effect on that agenda. Indeed, though [the GOP] has not agreed on a number of laws, it has explicitly rejected the demands to raise the minimum wage and the need to address income equality among various groups in society, especially women. This is an [important] issue for all Americans, and Republicans in Congress have been forced to remain silent and not object. The American president received applause about eighty times, in which the Republicans participated about thirty-five times. This is high, considering the current climate of polarity and turmoil that the president faces.

What was the content of the speech? Clearly the main concern of President Obama was the internal situation, especially on the level of economic and social development. He did not discuss all of American citizens’ concerns, and did not present solutions. He was content in focusing on some pressing issues that can be dealt with through as little expenditure as possible on the political level. This is proof of the structural and organizational weakness within the United States, where daring decisions are undesirable. His call to raise the minimum wage of workers in the state sector (they call them contractors!) to $10.10 an hour was met with a welcome the Republican Party was not able to counter. Additionally — albeit, to a lesser extent — calls of the American president to reduce the pay gap between men and women were also met with a warm welcome. These calls strengthen the position of the Democratic Party as protectors of women’s rights, alongside the main impression that the Republican Party does not pay attention to the economic situation of women. But this issue would require special legislation, and any congressional approval for this would be nearly impossible in the [current] atmosphere of polarity and division. Equal pay and income would be costly to organizations, which is entirely unwanted. So then, how would it happen?

The president repeated the impression that the Republican Party in the House controls Congress and that [the party] uses the power of obstruction in the Senate, and was responsible for the failure of legislation. He warned about resorting to what he called executive orders to legislate (making decisions of a legislative nature without confirmation from Congress). The American president urged Congress to work and legislate, but its capabilities in realizing big decisions — whether in the economy or in society — is still limited. As to the viability of Congress, the Founding Fathers wanted to undermine excessive presidential powers through imposing a balance of power, for which the term regarding relations between the president and Congress is “advice and consent” (as in, the president should solicit the opinions of Congress, as well as their final approval). But the [president’s] warnings of bypassing Congress provoked the Republican Party, which began gunning for obstruction of the movements of the U.S. president. It has not been clear until now whether it is possible for either of the two parties to realize its goal, but the current impasse in Congress is a circumstantial rather than a structural dilemma, especially given the present situation of polarity between the two parties and between special interest groups, which intervene in legislation through lobbying and actively override the public interest for the benefit of those special interests.

What characterized the president’s State of the Union speech was that he did not raise controversial issues and discuss them in-depth. Regarding the state of illegal immigration, he was content to allude to it [in order] not to excite the Republican Party — which would have introduced the issue of its legality. Illegal immigrants who come from Latin American countries, in numbers approaching about 15 million, are a sensitive topic for Republicans. These immigrants work in a number of sectors in which American citizens refuse to work; among them those of agriculture, construction and cleaning — [positions of] hard labor and low wages. On the other hand, Republicans do not want to offer any benefits for a welfare state that would [provide] healthcare and education for immigrants.

Absent from the president’s speech were any of those big ideas that all presidents use to define their political legacy. The second term for any president is characterized by a keenness to offer ideas and to manifest those ideas in a manner that contributes to the value of his historical legacy. Former President Lyndon Johnson presented the idea of the Great Society and the War on Poverty. President Reagan presented the idea of reducing the role of the state. President Bill Clinton presented the theory of moderation in government spending. George W. Bush was to be the president that contributed to the spreading of democracy in the world, as well as the values of the United States and the market economy. Bush was not successful; his political legacy was economic and politic collapse, both foreign and domestic.

In this context, the American president spoke on the issue of poverty in the United States without providing any solution to it — except for [comments on] the issue of income equality and an emphasis on healthcare insurance, which the Republican Party fought him on. The prevailing political culture in the United States makes speaking about redistribution of income taboo, prompting accusations of socialism or even communism. Words about class warfare are not allowed, but the American dream must be maintained. The president indicated, in some sentimental snapshots, that the United States is that land of opportunity, that the American identity is synonymous with opportunity. As an example, he alluded to Speaker of the House John Boehner — sitting behind him — as a doctor,* and said his father had been a bartender from humble societal origins. In contrast to that, the president acknowledged that social mobility was at a standstill, and that some studies have even pointed to a retreat. The opinion of the president is that this is not acceptable in the 21st century, but the solutions he proposed were very vague and pompous, such as the need to improve education in America to make it stronger and more competitive, without specifying how, when and at what cost. The war on poverty means more state intervention in economic and social life, disapproved of by a large portion of Americans.

As for the foreign policy side, the president’s speech was a repetition of his past position, which emphasized that the United States has no desire to embark in new wars. In total, the American president’s speech did not include anything new, but he was satisfied with making broad addresses without going into details, though the section about foreign affairs became a reproach! He did, however, confirm the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, though there are those who insist on signing agreements with the Afghan government to maintain a limited number of American and NATO forces to continue the policy of pursuing terrorism in Pakistan. But it seems that the Afghan government realizes that the United States needs them more than the Afghan government needs the United States. In any case, the withdrawal before the end of 2014 is an irreversible matter.

In other foreign issues, the American president repeated the past stance quickly, confirming that the U.S. supports the democratic movement in the world, and opposes dictatorships (in Syria, in particular). The message that the U.S. president presents to Americans is that the era of wars of choice is over (specifically, that the U.S. will not wage war except to defend itself, or if an attack was waged on it). The neo-conservative theory espoused by George W. Bush, which entailed a redrawing of the political map of the world by force, will not be applied by this administration. This position is well understood by the government of the Zionist entity** and, unfortunately, by some leaders in the Holy Land and Zionist lobbies in the United States. Here we understand the veracity of the campaign carried out by President Obama, who repeated and confirmed his commitment of safety of the Zionist entities, but not necessarily a commitment to the policies of the Zionist governments. Regarding the issue of a nuclear Iran, as had been the case regarding chemical weapons in Syria, the president was clear that diplomacy is the most effective use of strength — specifically, that use of force would be countered by force, representing a loss in America’s status. In response to this position, a number of Democratic senators went along with Obama’s decision not to increase sanctions on Iran, which finalizes this situation until further notice. With the commencement of mutual decision-making with Iran, this will create a foundation for increased understanding among other regional powers. The allies of the U.S. in the region need to adapt to this new reality. From here, we may understand the paradigm shift in Turkey’s stance and the visit of Erdogan to Iran. And we understand convening the Geneva Conference despite all analysts doubting its usefulness. Also, we understand the real intentions of the U.S. despite its hesitation in arming the “moderate” opposition and fighting terrorism. The message is clear: The U.S. will not enter into war for the sake of others.

It is an interesting point that the humble domestic proposals go hand in hand with humility in foreign policy ambitions. This confirms that America’s retreat is becoming a reality in the nation’s political consciousness. The impasse in passing domestic legislation through Congress expresses the existence of a bloated system and political structure. This is what we are reminded of time and time again. There is nothing on the horizon that proves that political leaders want to solve, or are even able to solve the issues. Proof of this is in the few words within official media or its alternative, and the lack of news about the speech, even after two days, on American websites; all this confirms a lack of seriousness among the ruling elites, and even the intellectual elites in their think tanks. It is necessary to confront the reality of America’s interior affairs, but as long as the reality remains as it is, the continued decline of future generations might lead to a general collapse.

*Editor’s note: This portion of the president’s speech cannot be corroborated, but it is accurately translated from the original. John Boehner is not a doctor.

**Editor’s note: Zionist entity refers to the State of Israel.