State of the Union: Ruh-Roh-Clintonesque or Reaganistic? Locke or Rousseau?

   The State of the Union just ended. Republicans up next, with the Governor of Virginia responding. For the first time, there is a live setting, with "spontaneously" affectionate supporters present. This is a much better idea for the GOP than a lonely fellow in a small room in the Capitol Building.

   You are also looking at one of the GOP front runners for the next election. It is not  a vast field. Note that in the background of the video feed, there is a soldier in uniform, a smiling female black and a smiling Asian. The Democrats got Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, equally smiling.

   The governor is arguing for small government. This always sounds so odd coming from a fellow who spent a million dollars trying to get a fifty thousand dollar job. 

   As for Mr. Obama, he is a riveting speaker. He is photogenic, sincere and earnest. His speech was about seventy minutes long. He came to health care at about page eleven and it was the best part of the speech. By that, I mean he seemed to care more about it than any other item.

   Mr. Obama floundered by offering something for everyone. The list of promises grew so long I thought he would shortly go saying, "Ask me. The store is open." 

   At one point, however, I honestly heard him take responsibility for the delay in health care reform. I was shocked and moved.

   My main problems are, the speech was not quite Clintonesque in its length, nor just exactly as inspiring as a Reaganistic effort as regards inspiration. It was somewhere in between. That is, less wordy than Clinton and less moving than Reagan. Mr. Obama is somewhere between them and, shockingly, even more circumscribed by  the parameters set by John Locke and Emile Rousseau. 

    Locke would have liked the elements of the speech that were anti-Federalist. Rousseau would have favored the parts wherein a  citizen is asked to do more, perhaps even though he must give more than his share. Reagan and Kennedy were Rousseau and almost Obama got there. GW Bush would was a confused Locke, with Nixon not far behind.

   My apprehensions are with the non-starters; gays in the military and equal pay for equal work. Clinton spent a lot of time on those nebulous problems. His promising primacy foundered on them and sank and sank among the bimboes. Bush lived and then died with Lockenstic individualism. Mr. Obama appealled to both. It is a muddled mess, at best now.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.