A Reading into Obama’s State of the Union

The “State of the Union” is an annual address given by the U.S. president to Congress in January. This address became a yearly tradition since the rise of Uncle Sam’s states as a characteristic mechanism of the American political system. It mainly obligates the U.S. head of state to tackle the achievements of the past year of his term in office as well as the hindrances he met, which prevented him from following through with his promises. Additionally, the president would reveal future plans and projects slated for public discussion.

Naturally, local and international media take the utmost interest in this grand and important event, especially with the coming of a new president. The president’s first State of the Union is something like a test of his true leadership abilities and a measure of the gap between promises, easily said before and during electoral campaigns and actual achievements on the ground.

Yet, the address Obama gave on Jan. 27 had a special taste for two reasons. Firstly, Obama’s win of the U.S. presidency was not an ordinary event. It was a rather historical one. He was the first American president of African and Islamic roots. Also, he assumed this responsibility during a crucial moment in America’s history when the schemes of neoconservatives were collapsing and about to end.

In actuality, during the presidential electoral campaign, Obama enjoyed a striking charisma that enabled him to easily gain the trust of voters in spite of his ethnic and religious roots. For this, he was deemed by millions around the globe as a ‘savior’ leader — a man Providence chose to bring the world to safer shores during the most volatile stage of a developing international system.

Secondly, Obama’s performance during his first year was not up to expectations; rather, it was regarded as disappointing by many, both internally and externally, and his popularity dropped to less than 50 percent. In this sense, the world went on, questioning essential differences between Obama’s policies and those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, particularly with respect to foreign attitudes.

So, amidst this change to Obama’s brave image in the eyes of the great masses, it was not strange that analysts around the globe eagerly waited to examine his first State of the Union. They waited to see the way in which Obama sees his own rule, his country and the world, one year after his inauguration. They waited to see if the faith in his abilities to achieve change has irreversibly gone now. For the sake of justification, Obama should be excused for these shortcomings. He is shouldering a heavy inheritance left by the neconservative administration over the past eight years. Hence, America and the world may grant him more time before any judgment has been made.

Still, after carefully reading Obama’s State of the Union, there are three main issues to draw attention to:

Domestic affairs were the crux of the first issue. It is no secret that America is materially and morally exhausted by two great wars. Yet, external policy and U.S. foreign relations were timidly tackled by the address, and only with respect to their direct impact on national security and the daily life of Americans.

The second issue relates to a tone of obvious concern with the future and status of the U.S. within the global arena. In spite of Obama’s inclusion of lengthy verses regarding his faith in the “genius” of the American people and their persistence to be in the forefront, this could not veil a deep feeling of worry. Reflectively, this worry is apposite to the shaky image of the American political system that’s obviously on Obama’s mind. The system, apparently, lacks due competence to adapt its mechanisms to meet its present challenges. Obama is not very alarmed by the other enormous challenges facing the American people, even if Americans’ insistence upon withstanding them is waning.

The third issue regards the American president’s sheer oversight of issues in the Arab region, particularly those of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the efforts America has exerted to reach a peaceful settlement. This oversight was so extensive that the State of the Union is void of the words “Palestine,” “Middle East” and even “Israel.” Strangely enough, no one is ignorant of the fact that each and every American president has, over the years, enclosed at least one paragraph in his address to stress the United States’ unceasing commitment to guarantee the security and superiority of Israel as well as their keenness on reaching a peaceful settlement for the conflict in question.

I, for one, believe that these three issues have momentous implications. As such, they deserve to be deeply analyzed and explored in the following remarks:

Firstly, Obama highlighted specific domestic American issues in this address. This acknowledgement, as the argument runs, does not reflect a desperate bid on Obama’s part to adulate American voters as the mid-term elections of the Congress near. Rather, it mirrors Obama’s own feelings regarding the intensity of the crisis. He is worried about the deterioration of America’s status within the international system as well as the recession of its capabilities to effectively improve it. Strikingly, Obama talked, more than once, about the superiority of economics that depend on clean energy. He also added that countries which build these economics should take the reins of the global economic system in the future. Also, explicit references were made to China, India and other countries that he views as of a better status.

Indeed, Obama detailed some measures, designed to get the American economy back on the right route. He revealed ambitious plans for investment in many sectors, especially of energy and education. Yet, he did not forget to applaud the persistence of the American people. Their country, America, does not accept any substitute for its pivotal role in the global system in the 21st century, which according to Obama will still be the ‘American’ century. Nevertheless, his awareness of this heavy crisis can easily be read between the lines.

Over and above, it suffices to examine the numbers mentioned in Obama’s address, regarding the debts incurred by the U.S. and their present budget deficit in comparison with the surplus, achieved since 2000. These numbers were used by Obama to justify his decision to freeze the increase in expenditures in most sectors, with the certain exclusion of vital ones. This demonstrates how heavily the current dilemma and its impact on the U.S. weighs on Barack Obama.

Secondly, there are bitter complaints of many flawed aspects of the American political system. Apparently, from Obama’s point of view, this system undergoes continuous elections that make it liable to bids. Accordingly, it suffers from being pressured by local or even external interest groups due to the influence of various “lobbies” that impact centers of decision-making.

I think this complaint does not mirror Obama’s attempt to justify his failure in bringing about the change he vowed to achieve. Instead, it expresses the shock of a young president who is new to Washington’s policy-making mechanisms and is required to stand for the interests of the more marginalized American social classes. Seemingly, this shock alerted him to the real American political system, which he began to see through the eyes of the “president.” And anew, he will discover the calcification afflicting this system, previously described by his predecessors as subject to the interests and whims of dominant industrial and military lobbies.

As a matter of fact, Obama already showed his willingness to adopt measures that can mitigate the influence of these lobbies and bridle their impact on federal decision-making centers. Yet, he found himself, at last, forced to admit, explicitly or implicitly, that he cannot govern without the help of the Republican Party! So much so, that Obama reiterated in his address that he is keen on holding regular meetings with Republican legislators. Not only this, but he also said that he is determined to find coordinative mechanisms between the Republican and Democratic Parties, which would help speedily pass legislations to meet the present challenges.

Thirdly, Obama completely neglected the Arab-Israeli conflict. He only made a quick reference to happenings in the region and the menaces of nuclear proliferation as it threatens the security of the U.S. and the world. Also, again, he reiterated his resolution to adopt additional strict measures towards Iran if it goes too far in its wrongheadedness with respect to uranium enrichment.

This negligence, though, does not imply Obama’s desire to go back on his old vows of exerting efforts to bring about a comprehensive and just settlement for the Arab-Israeli conflict based on a two-state disengagement (Palestine and Israel.) It indicates his acknowledgement of inappropriate local, regional and international circumstances to establish such a settlement. On the one hand, at present, the balance of political powers inside the U.S. does not enable him to effectively pressure Israel. On the other hand, regional and international powers would not make it possible for Obama to reach a settlement based on moderate solutions.

Clearly, in the light of these three remarks, Obama is quickly heading towards a crossroad that he will not reach before the end of this year or more specifically, before the congressional mid-term elections next November. Moreover, the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan offers no good news. Obama hopes that he can, at least, withdraw his troops from Iraq by next August. Such an action, when achieved, will hopefully enable him, in addition to passing his health insurance scheme, to successfully decide the mid-term elections in his favor and consequently improve his internal status. Only then, would he be able to speedily and daringly bring about change!

However, this scenario does not seem to be guaranteed. Obama fully grasps that the rightist powers are gaining balance again and arranging themselves in a superior position. Also, he knows pretty well that the situation in the Middle East is tending to become tenser, especially as Israel and Iran claim to have their own reasons for escalations. So, most probably, Obama will do the best he can to bridle both parties and maintain calmness until American withdrawal from Iraq and mid-term elections are both over. However, he might not succeed in achieving this goal, particularly if the American right corners him to push him towards escalations with Iran, for the benefit of Israel. Herein lies danger.

In summary, the State of the Union address reveals Obama’s weakness and puzzlement at this point in time. This feeling of weakness may allure one to fortify strength. That is why the Middle East, once again, might be awakened by the beating of the war drum!