Same speech, different year

[zipplewrath]

As much as I liked the substance of much of what he had to say, I couldn't help get around the fact that he's given SOTU addresses before only to watch little if any of what I admired actually happen. That congress sitting out there will very likely do something this year, but probably not anything in keeping with the aspects of the speech I admired. They won't institute the 30% minimum tax. A deal will probably be cut where they let expire the tax cuts for those over a million in "income" but leave relatively unchanged the 15% capital gains tax that is the fundamental problem. And to get it there will probably be domestic spending cuts in the out years.

I was glad to hear that we are on target for 23,000 troops to come home by the end of "summer". Long way to go but it's a much healthier start than some were predicting. I was concerned by the fact that he started, and ended, with the wars and the military. I realize he feels that by keeping Gates and Petraeus, executing the SOFA and killing Osama bin Laden, he has not only "inoculated" himself on national security, but actually has the GOP back on their heels. I'm just concerned that this means he has to "keep it up" and will be negotiating, once again, to extend and make more permanent our commitments in Afghanistan. I'll always be a tad concerned that Iraq will come calling for "advisers" or "anti-terrorist" support and there are those in the administration more than willing to advocate for it.

I was glad to hear the strong "populist" tone of much of the speech. It's good to hear the defense of positions that are very popular. There is strong support for more "fairness" in the system. There is support for regulations against excess. Again, I'm dubious he can get anything through congress, even if the democrats gain control of the House. I don't think you'll see the Senate change its stripes. Honestly, I don't think his call for "up or down votes" is anymore popular with the democrats than the republicans.

And I was struck by his closing metaphore about the Osama bin Laden raid. All very nice metaphor and all, and I understand his desire to emphasize the successful raid and all. I'd merely point out something TO Obama. The raid happened the way it did, and contained the attitudes, methods, and teamwork that he admired because it was executed in an authortarian environment. There was no arguing about who the individuals were, or about goals and methods, because of the top down structure of the system. He makes the decision, and guides the subordinates who flesh his decision out into methods. And that goes all the way down to the guy with the gun who decides when to shoot. Everyone knows their job, and the limits thereof, and executes it, regardless of their position on the wisdom of the plan.

In essence, it comes down to leadership. If you want that kind of attitude in a system, it starts at the top. It starts with making the kind of leadership decisions needed, and then communicating down the line that the arguments are over and the decision has been made. Each level has this process, right down to the guy that pulls the trigger. This is the "opposite" of what he has been trying to achieve in Washington. He has been seeking consensus. He wants to establish "common ground". He asserts that our country achieves great things when "we all come together". That really isn't true. Much of our history is an example of severe conflict being resolved by strong leadership asserting a point of view, and acting on it, WITHOUT anything approaching consensus.

FDR was already "fighting" WWII well before Pearl, and all the while the country was feeling very isolationist. He wasn't interested in finding common ground with the GOP on economic issues. Truth is, the revolutionary war was started by a "minority" of people. Most civil rights in this country were gained by a minority of individuals agitating and goading the majority, frequently having to force the issue through courts, or force of arms. The union movement had an extremely violent beginning.

He can try to find the path of least resistence, but much like his HCR and the stimulus, there won't be much support for the truly transformative actions. Those have to be take from a point of leadership, and realizing that there is a strong chance the majority won't initially agree. Many will, however, respond to very strong leadership presenting the vision and as a decision made, not a discussion to begin.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I beg to differ with one important point that is part of your thesis.....

you say, "Much of our history is an example of severe conflict being resolved by strong leadership asserting a point of view, and acting on it, WITHOUT anything approaching consensus."

I would say that much of our history is an example of severe conflict being resolved by strong actions taken by many starting at the bottom and working its way slowly to the top that got it acted upon, with eventual consensus being the deciding factor.

And I find that attempting to give credit to the leadership of any one person equals an overated myth that is convenient at shifting responsibility in order to blame one person for any failure to get it done if required.

[zipplewrath]

2. In an attempt to find concensus...

Excusing the obvious pun....

I would agree that there is a form of "serial leadership" in which it starts at what I think you are calling the "bottom" (I'd probably well outside the main stream or something) and through a series of "leaders" finds its way into the body politic where it ultimately is acted upon.

I think our point of difference would be the "eventual consensus" part. I suppose it will depend greatly upon ones definition of concensus. But in many of the larger movements, it was far from concensus when the actions were taken. Forced busing, the integration of the military, even the emancipation proclamation were actions that were often taken in opposition to any concensus, at least across a political spectrum. The civil rights act was forced through the congress by leadership, even though there wasn't a broad support across the country for it. LBJ even admits it wasn't particularly politically expedient. Prohibition enjoy almost no broad consensus, to the point that several states even refused to enforce it, and much of the country ignored it. Women's suffrage passes not because their is broad consensus that women deserve the vote, but because there is a belief on the part of certain groups that they will tend to vote in an acceptable manner.

Concensus tends to form after the fact. Mostly because people tend to enjoy what they have, even if they wouldn't have chosen it originally.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Again, some of your points....I do not agree with.....

The civil rights act was forced through the congress by marchers shown via the media being attached by fire hose and dogs, and the thousands that showed up to listen to Dr. King speak. This is what changed public opinion, making it possible for political leaders to follow through by providing cover to their action. Civil Right actions took place long before Johnson came into office. In otherwords, the grassroots did its thing, stayed consistent with its action and message and importantly withouy constantly demogoguing political leaders (especially those on their side) in order to achieve their objective.

You must remember that slaves were freed a hundred years prior to the civil rights bill being signed.....so it wasn't slaves being freed that provided them with the rights that they should have gotten then. They had to fight for 100 years to get her done!

Same goes for Women's suffrage.....
even how the Vietnam war eventually ended.....

Concensus tends to form slowly as a group take action. Political will is not often present until the people make themselves heard consistently and loudly.....

It is true that there are times when high courts can render case decisions that pushes the process along, as well, executive orders that can to some degree make dents.....

However, what didn't affect change in most of what you listed were having a bunch of folks sitting on their asses criticizing everything and anything while not doing squat else.

[zipplewrath]

4. I agree many were involved

I differ that much of the change we've seen over the last 200+ years was AFTER consensus was formed. The revolution started with minority support. Lincoln created the concept of preserving the union, after the dissolution started (and prevented Maryland from leaving), and before the concept was even defined. Prohibition never really had majority support. More than one politician has resisted putting some grand idea to a popular vote because of the fear that it would lose. I agree it is never "one man". Even cases getting to the courts tend only to make it once there is something approaching "wide spread" problems. But in many cases, the minority acts in spite of the majority, and the consensus forms later.

[FrenchieCat]

5. "the minority acts"......

[zipplewrath]

6. yes

frequently it only takes a plurality to "rule".