Smoked salmon?

My reaction to last night's State of the Union address is multi-layered.  There were many proposals set forth in the speech with which I agree - an emphasis on the long-term importance (economic and otherwise) of education, supporting research and development of new energy technologies, simplifying the tax code, and the need to treat the new health care law as a starting point for change, rather than a battle to be continually re-fought, to name a few.  There were also some positive vibes of bi-partisanship, with the well-publicized mixed-party seating arrangement, at least two distinct instances of Speaker Boehner being moved to tears, and some light-hearted jokes from the president (including a very strange, but hilarious, reference to smoked salmon to illustrate unnecessary government bureaucracy).

On the other hand, I was, surprisingly, underwhelmed by the speech's rhetoric and flow.  And, of even greater consequence, was fairly deeply disappointed by Obama's relatively weak language on deficit reduction.  I understand that cuts to social security, Medicare, and defense are going to be deeply unpopular.  But Republicans are going to hammer Obama over the deficit for the next two years.  A nebulous "five year freeze on federal spending" is not going to cut it.

I wish that he had explained, in more detail, the cuts suggested by his Bowles-Simpson debt commission last month.  Even if he followed that up with his line about not agreeing with all of the proposals, but using it as a starting place, that would have been, rhetorically and concretely, much more powerful than quickly glazing over the issue.

These are issues that we are going to have to face, as a country, in the very near future.  We cannot afford not to.  Most frustratingly, someone with Obama's oratorical gifts should have been able to pull this off in a convincing way.  Doing so would have forced to confront the grim realities of deficit reduction, instead of insisting that cutting taxes and slashing various forms of non-defense discretionary spending alone equates to fiscal responsibility.  And it would have required idealistic Democrats to recognize that we need to find a way to preserve these social safety nets for the most vulnerable among us, while reducing or eliminating entitlements for those fortunate enough to not need them.

None of that would have been an easy sell, but I think this Washington Post editorial is spot on (surely Andrew Sullivan, if not sidelined by illness, would be saying the same thing): we elected Obama to treat us like adults and help us get through the crises facing our nation responsibly and honestly.  And by that metric, his speech failed.  Miserably, in my opinion.