two obamas

For most viewers, the 2011 State of the Union was all about the salmon.This wordcloud illustrates the answers given by listeners to America's National Public Radio, when they were asked, a few minutes after Obama's address, to describe it in three words.

For those of you wondering why on earth a freshwater fish looms so large, it's because Obama told a joke to illustrate the problem of over-complicated government regulation:

"The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they're in saltwater," Obama said. "I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked."

It's not exactly Reaganesque but I suppose it must be so rare for a president to crack a gag in a State of the Union address that it's all anyone notices.

With SotU speeches, what matters isn't the immediate response so much as what it portends for the president' strategy for the year ahead. And it seems that with his "winning the future" theme, Obama is determined to get better at what he hasn't done well to date: project an optimistic, upbeat vision of the next few years and America's future more generally. He also made a determined effort to sound bipartisan, and above the fray. All of which is smart and bodes well for him in 2012.

It wasn't a great speech, however. This response, from the Atlantic's Joshua Green, is fairly representative of many Obama supporters:

I'd put this speech in the same category as Obama's inaugural address. The point wasn't soaring rhetoric or soothing the nation, as the president has done so well on so many occasions, from his 'race speech' in Philadelphia to his recent speech in Tucson. Instead, like the inaugural address, tonight's speech seemed like it was intended to do a job: to set the agenda and refocus the nation's attention where Obama would like it to be...I thought too much of the speech came across as hucksterish and hokey, as though Obama were fresh from some all-day motivational conference by Tom Peters or some other catch-phrase spouting business guru type. But if only through bludgeoning repetition, I think he got his point across.

Others made similar sounds of mild disappointment after Obama's inaugural. It should now be clear, however, that Obama's speeches fall into two distinct categories: the workmanlike, and the inspirational, and that these two categories equate to, respectively, his political speeches and (for want of a better word) his spiritual speeches. By 'spiritual' I mean speeches that address big, basically apolitical themes of social and cultural matter: eg race, or civility. These are the speeches Obama does best; these are the ones that soar and inspire. But - being a politician - most of his speeches are political. And here he is pretty much a boilerplate kind of a guy: he does laundry lists, invokes cliches, attempts the odd joke, but doesn't really apply his imagination or infuse his words with passion.

This is why people get that sense of faint disappointment, and it partly explains the perceived disjunction between Obama the candidate and Obama the president. Obama won't, or can't, take some of the magic dust from the second category and sprinkle it on the first; he doesn't mingle poetry and prose. He simply doesn't bring his best game to political setpieces.

At heart, Obama is a preacher, not a politician. He would, if he was allowed, make only speeches like the ones he gave in Tucson this month or Philadelphia in 2008. This is the bargain he has made with himself. He pays the price of being a politician so that he can preach; he makes eight prose speeches so that he can deliver two in poetry.

Arguably, of course, this is the wrong way round, for a president.

Comments

[Robbie]

It's the fact that the word map is shaped like a fish that makes it so special.

[peter]

On the contrary, I say Bam has the proportion of speech types just about right. If it was 8 poetry to 2 prose, we would all be reeling from the continual uplift, and many would be claiming that he was all inspiring talk and no practical action. That, as I recall, was precisely the criticism made of him by various Clintonites, Palinites and McCainites prior to November 2008, when he was better known for his poetry than for his legislative achievements. Now that he's achieved more profound legislation, faster, than any US President in 42 years, you now want more poetry?

[Arapaho415]

Ian,

I don't know if UK viewers can watch MSNBC videos, but last night's 14-minute Rachel Maddow opening segment was an eye-opener for me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#41283983

She's so good at supporing her arguments. In this case, she convincingly persuades that Obama has shifted public perception of what the "center" is, and its to left of where the "center" has been perceived for years.

I especially appreciate what she has to say about Eisenhower.

Mark Knoller (CBS Radio) tweeted late last year:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/7q26vk
On Thursday 30th December 2010, @markknoller said:
Most noteworthy recess appointments:

Pres. Eisenhower made 3 recess appointments to the US Supreme Court including:

-Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953)
-Associate Justices William Brennan (1956)
-and Associate Justice Potter Stewart (1958).

Each later received Senate confirmation.

This is remarkable! Warren & Brennan were the liberal lions of the 20th mid-century Supreme Court.

[Ejoch]

'pays the price of being a politician so he can preach'? Oh lord I hope that isn't true. And not just because preacher-style speeches leave me utterly cold. The politicians I admire most wanted to get things done, and saw any poetical speeches as a necessary price (or evil) to bring the public along. although I'll admit to a liking for some poetical speeches, none recent.