The union is in a state of deep and justifiable anxiety about jobs and mortgages and two long, bloody wars.President Barack Obama did not create these problems, and none could be solved in one year. But 2009 offered powerful and, at times, bruising lessons for a new president struggling to fulfill the seismic promise of his election.
Mr. Obama’s first State of the Union Address was a chance to show what he has learned and to tell Americans how he intends to govern in the next three years.
There is no denying the world’s relief that Mr. Obama is very much not George W. Bush.
He is managing the necessary exit from Iraq. His decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan (the necessary war President Bush disastrously neglected) was courageous and strategically sound. He leads global climate talks instead of sneering at them.
At home, Mr. Obama won an economic recovery bill that was too small, but staved off an even deeper recession. He raised fuel standards for cars and appointed Sonia Sotomayor to a Supreme Court that had been drifting dangerously rightward.
That is good, but not enough.
Unemployment is still 10 percent. Bankers and their lobbyists (and much of Capitol Hill) are resisting essential financial reforms. The political climate in Washington is venomous. The Democratic Party is scared of its own shadow. The Republicans’ only legislative plan is to carp and filibuster.
We respect Mr. Obama’s deliberative nature, and we, too, would like to see bipartisan cooperation.
In 2009, Mr. Obama underestimated the Republicans’ determination to block anything he proposed. When the economy was imploding, only three Republican senators voted for the absolutely essential stimulus bill. None agreed to back health care reform or to even vote to end a filibuster.
While he was deliberating and negotiating, Mr. Obama let his critics define and distort his policies. The public has not forgotten the summer of death panels.
Mr. Obama needs to be tougher, faster and clearer going forward. If the Republicans want to continue to block bills that the country wants and needs, he should let them filibuster so the public can take notice. (Last December, the Republicans in the Senate tried to block the annual defense-spending bill because an extension of unemployment benefits was attached to it. After that mischief failed, they voted for the bill in overwhelming numbers.)
Rather than scaling back health care reform to court Republicans, he might try challenging them to come up with a serious plan--one that provides real security for all Americans and has a real chance of controlling costs.
While Mr. Obama needs to be tougher and more vocal, it would be a mistake for him to conclude that what’s needed is shrill populism and a lurch to the left.
After their taxpayer-financed bailout, he is right to call for additional taxes on the big banks. (And he should support the drive in the House to tax bankers’ obscene bonuses.) But he must address the core issues that brought the economy to near ruin and insist on rigorous reforms of the financial system.
Mr. Obama was right to propose a bipartisan panel on deficit reduction, and it was hypocritical of Senate Republicans to refuse to vote on it. We are as concerned as most Americans about the deficit, but right now, the country does not need Mr. Obama to be a deficit hawk.
The lesson of 2009 was that Americans need jobs and help with their mortgages. The private sector seems unlikely to propel a self-sustaining recovery any time soon. That means more stimulus spending, not less, certainly much more than the $154 billion jobs bill the House has passed.
In a year as president, Mr. Obama has often reminded us that he is a gifted orator, able to inspire with grand vision and with the simple truth frankly spoken. The State of the Union was a good chance to address the big debates, to make clear that he would press ahead with health care and challenge the Republicans to work with him or get out of the way.
It was long in coming.
The above is an editorial of the New York Times.
