For all the “future” talk in last night’s State of the Union
address, President Obama seemed to have drawn a lot of
inspiration from the past.
While the defining phrase of the speech, “Winning the Future,”
was the title of a 2005
book by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the content of the
speech echoed the theme of former President Bill Clinton’s
reelection campaign.
After defeat in the 1994 midterm elections curtailed his
ambitious legislative agenda, Clinton famously pivoted,
acknowledging the public’s desire to rein in government while
positioning himself as the protector of the social safety net from
the Gingrich Republicans who wanted to rip it to shreds. In the
1996 campaign, this morphed into the vaguely defined “Bridge to the
21st Century.”
Obama, facing a similar set of political circumstances, now
looks to be replicating the winning Clinton model as he gears up
for his own reelection effort.
In both cases, the presidents were addressing a nation that had
become skeptical of big government, and thus they tried to frame
their expansionary policies in a way that tapped into Americans’
patriotism and romance with the future.
“So tonight, let us resolve to build that bridge to the 21st
century, to meet our challenges and protect our values,” Clinton
said in his
acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic National
Convention.
In his State of the Union address last night, Obama said, “So
over the last two years, we’ve begun rebuilding for the 21st
century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the
hard-hit construction industry. And tonight, I’m proposing
that we redouble those efforts.”
In the Clinton-Obama framework, government needs to be cut, yes,
but only in a humane way that doesn’t inhibit progress.
“(L)et us proclaim to the American people we will balance the
budget, and let us also proclaim we will do it in a way that
preserves Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, the
integrity of our pensions, the strength of our people,” Clinton
said in his acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic National
Convention. “I want to balance the budget with real cuts in
government and waste. I want a plan that invests in education as
mine does, in technology and yes, in research.”
In his State of the Union speech, Obama reiterated his call for
freezing discretionary spending without endorsing specific reforms
to entitlement programs, and in the process he delivered a warning
that sounded eerily reminiscent of Clinton’s.
“I recognize that some in this chamber have already proposed
deeper cuts, and I’m willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly
afford to do without,” Obama said. “But let’s make sure that
we’re not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.
Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and
education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its
engine. It may make you feel like you’re flying high at first, but
it won’t take long before you feel the impact.”
Last night, Obama spoke of a renewed commitment to education.
“To compete, higher education must be within the reach of every
American,” he said. “That’s why we’ve ended the unwarranted
taxpayer subsidies that went to banks, and used the savings to make
college affordable for millions of students. And this year, I ask
Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit
— worth $10,000 for four years of college.”
Back in 1996, Clinton said, “By the year 2000 the single most
critical thing we can do is to give every single American who wants
it the chance to go to college. We must make two years of college
just as universal in four years as a high school education is
today. And we can do it. We can do it and we should cut taxes to do
it. I propose a $1,500 a year tuition tax credit for Americans, a
Hope Scholarship for the first two years of college to make the
typical community college education available to every American. I
believe every working family ought also to be able to deduct up to
$10,000 in college tuition costs per year for education after
that.”
Clinton wanted “every single library and classroom in America
connected to the information superhighway by the year 2000” and to
make sure that “every 12-year-old will be able to log in on the
Internet…” Last night, Obama predicted that, “Within the next five
years, we’ll make it possible for businesses to deploy the next
generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98 percent of all
Americans.”
Just as Clinton took credit for welfare reform that was largely
forced upon him by the new GOP majority, Obama declared early in
his speech that, “Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans’
paychecks are a little bigger today.”
Obama may be the beneficiary of a weak GOP field in 2012 no
matter what strategy he employs, but there are several reasons why
Obama is in a tougher position than Clinton.
Ironically, Clinton benefitted from the fact that his
legislative priorities were largely stymied during his first two
years in office, allowing him to later distance himself from a
transformational liberal social agenda. By contrast, Obama was very
successful legislatively, and the implementation of his policies —
most notably, the national health care law — will continue to
remind voters that he’s a big government liberal.
Also, it was easier to postpone action on entitlements back in
the 1990s, but now our debt is much steeper, the economy is much
weaker, and the day of reckoning is quickly approaching with Baby
Boomers retiring. As Rep. Paul Ryan put it in his
response to Obama’s speech, “What was a fiscal challenge is now
a fiscal crisis.”
Back in 1996, Clinton observed, “(W)e do not need to build a
bridge to the past. We need to build a bridge to the future.”
Last night, Obama explained that, “We can’t win the future with
a government of the past.”
The question facing Obama is whether he can win reelection with
a campaign from the past.
