If your viewing of this year’s State of the Union address was anything like mine, it involved good friends, adult beverages and a playful willingness to poke fun at John Kerry’s ghastly hockey bruises. Unfortunately, if you turned off your TV after Obama’s departing “God Bless the USA” to catch the ending of Teen Mom, you might’ve missed the most politically breathtaking moment of the night: the Republican rebuttal delivered by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels.
Daniels, a conservative with impeccable business credentials, a surprisingly impressive record on job creation, budget-balancing and a stern refusal to let his administration be dictated by social issues in a time of economic hardship, did the country a favor Tuesday night by providing it with a logical and tempered foil to Obama’s vision of government.
If you’ve followed the State of the Union in the past, you might’ve noticed a trend in the Republican responses. For at least the last two years, they have tended to be monotonous and vague, either restating the official party line and pandering to the base of the party, or giving a scathing no-holds-barred style critique of the government’s action and its economic responsibilities.
The speech has also been a notorious slayer of politicians.
In 2010, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal eviscerated any national political ambitions he might have had when some prominent critics went so far as to label him a nihilist for his rant of the evils of federal government action. One of the next year’s follow-up acts, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, refused to look at the camera for the entirety of her speaking, making her a running joke on some Internet forums and nightly comedy programs. All in all, Republican rebuttals to Obama’s State of the Union addresses haven’t done much but flounder.
It is this troubled history, combined with a few other factors, which made Daniels shine on Tuesday night. I’d argue there were three features in particular that made his speech the more memorable of the two given that evening.
First, Daniels’ speech contained real policy proposals and specific suggestions that involved compromise with Democrats. In a Washington environment defined by intransigence, it was heartening to see a prominent politician ask for dollars to be “devoted to those who need them the most.”
It was also encouraging to hear one talk about taking steps forward to form a solution for the growing potholes of debt that social security and Medicaid have become, instead of moving laterally by blaming the Democratic administration. As Daniels pointed out, “An opposition that would earn its way back to leadership must offer not just criticism of failures that anyone can see, but a positive and credible plan to make life better, particularly for those aspiring to make a better life for themselves.”
Second, Daniels made a solid effort to unite, not divide. Even though he made some questionable claims about Obama’s record on this topic, his rhetoric called for Democratic cooperation to readjust the tax policy and make headway on job creation. “If we drift, quarrelling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt,” he opined, “we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender or other category.”
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Daniels’ tone was one that did not seek to demonize Democrats, or make Obama out to be the anti-Christ. His opening phrase, “loyal opposition” captures what should be the essence of any democracy: two sides with competing economic doctrines and beliefs about what creates prosperity, but with a common goal of American greatness at the end. Such phrases give political relief at a time when the news waves are dominated by a race-baiting Newt Gingrich and wishy-washy Mitt Romney, willing to castigate Obama for the very policies that he himself would likely pursue.
There are no doubt massive chasms that still divide Republican and Democratic solutions to the national debt, the tax code and the ever-growing issue of entitlement reform. And although Daniels’ speech did not make reference to any Democratic ideas and may have thrown some cheap shots at Obama’s record, that’s not the point. Daniels’ rebuttal is the starting point for a civil, honest, and educational public dialogue on the role of government of which this country is in dire need.
People may disagree with Daniels 180 degrees (for the record, I voted Obama in 2008 and probably will again in 2012), but it’s hard to argue that he hasn’t done us a favor by asking us to acknowledge the other side’s opinions.
In the original online headline, it said “Gov. Olsen’s rebuttal outshines Obama’s,” when it should have said “Indiana Gov. Daniels’ rebuttal outshines Obama’s.” It has been edited to reflect these changes. We regret the error.
