Three nights ago, President Barack Obama delivered the State of the Union Address. The well-delivered speech struck a cautiously optimistic tone that was aware of the challenges that lay ahead, but confident of American exceptionalism. As anyone who has read my past columns may guess, I found the speech to be a graceful articulation of admirable goals. However, there were a few points with which I disagreed. Then, of course, came Paul Ryan’s Republican response – another reminder of the unfortunate fact that Wisconsin is currently hemorrhaging red. Then, as if Ryan’s measured fear mongering were not enough, Michele Bachmann read off a teleprompter for much too long. The Tea Party is a reactionary, far right faction riding an inexplicable wave of popularity, but it will ultimately alienate moderate voters and hurt Republicans. In other words, Bachmann should never have been delivering a response.

One of Obama’s specific goals was to provide high speed rail to 80% of Americans in the next 25 years. Gov. Walker’s refusal to invest in the transportation system of the future will not only hurt Wisconsin’s economy in the short term through the immediate loss of jobs and future job creation, but will also disconnect Wisconsin from the burgeoning transportation system of the country. What if, in 1956, Walter Kohler rebuffed the federal push to build the interstate system? Or incoming Gov.-elect Vernon Thomson killed the project? The state clearly would have been better off – all those small towns consisting of gas stations, hotels and fast food restaurants just off the interstate would not exist, and we could all just ride ATVs or mountain bikes around. High-speed rail is inexorably crisscrossing the nation, and Wisconsin shirked away from leading into the future. Bob La Follette would have moved to Illinois.

I would like to offer a caveat to President Obama’s acclamation of Race to the Top. Race to the Top incentivizes high test scores and ties teacher performance to student performance on standardized tests. Instead of making sure that students have a wide knowledge base, critical thinking skills and positive attitudes about learning, it encourages teachers to ‘teach to the test.’ States such as Wisconsin, which do not tie teacher evaluations to student performance on standardized tests, have never received any Race to the Top funds. The goals of closing the education gap, preparing students for college and beyond and tracking students’ educational growth are all worthy goals; however, actual implementation of the program is sub-optimal.

Despite Obama’s rather fiscally conservative tone, Ryan focused on the administration’s economic policy in the Republican response. Although it sounded a bit rehearsed and stiff at times, Ryan’s delivery was generally good. However, his tone was radically different from President Obama’s. Where Obama was hopeful, Ryan attempted to sound pragmatic in the face of impending doom. Ryan leaned heavily on a pathos-driven argument in which he fretted about the fate of his children under a crippling tax system that serves only to hurt the American people and economy. According to Ryan, Obama’s economic policies have failed to address the budget crisis and the unemployment crisis and have only created a new, untenable entitlement program. What Ryan seems to have forgotten is that unemployment had been rising since June 2007 and did not start to decrease until November 2009. Yes, unemployment is still painfully high, but the economy is undergoing serious structural changes and Obama’s policies are doing something to help ameliorate the disaster. The stimulus spending is a bit like the door Kate Winslet holds onto at the end of Titanic: It’s not the greatest, and Leonardo DiCaprio still dies, but at least she survives.

Ryan at least admitted that both parties are to blame for the economic bind that the country is in, a point on which I heartily agree. The current political climate is adversarial to tackling the hard questions of national debt and deficit – constituencies have formed around federal programs that will fight bitterly against funding cuts, and increasing revenue is never a popular measure. (Unless it’s through the Homestead Act, but there isn’t even land left in Alaska anymore.) Ryan failed to offer new ideas for federal involvement in the economy. Instead, he went on to extol the benefits of laissez-faire economics. I guess there’s a historical precedent – the economy was swell in the 1920s.

Instead of offering real alternatives and plans, Ryan attempted to stoke opposition to the president though the use of fear. That is not the constructive dialogue we need right now.

Obama’s State of the Union Address was a rhetorical triumph, managing to strike a tone appropriate for the optimism and anxiety of the times. Paul Ryan’s speech was less refined but still raised some important points. The true test of the night is not how much applause is rendered, or how many times the speeches are replayed on YouTube. Instead, the outcome of the night will be reflected in upcoming legislation. Our elected officials must come together, not only by sitting next to each other, but by really working with each other on the tough issues that will determine how we ‘win the future’.

Elise Swanson ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in Political Science and English.