The main goal of the Presidential address was to show the country and the world that he had learned his lessons of the midterm elections at which the Democrats sustained heavy losses, that he was ready to move towards the center of the political spectrum and was determined to get both parties' support for his domestic and foreign policy. This way he was hoping to stop the loss of confidence for his administration's policy and regain the trust of independent voters without whose support he can hardly expect to win the 2012 election.
Both the address itself and the response to it show that, most likely, Obama will not be able to position himself as a leader that can bring the nation together. Indeed, the entire 2008 campaign was conducted under the slogans to the effect that it was he who was able to overcome the profound divisiveness amongst the American public, and that under his leadership the American government and the nation would be able to respond to the challenges facing the United States. Obama himself would very much like to become a 'transformative' president, like Reagan or Roosevelt, but judging by the results of over two years of his presidency, by the main content of his address and by the objectives he sets for the United States, it is very unlikely that he will become a president who will change the essence of U.S. politics and economy. The main messages worded by the president did not turn out to be too inspiring for the Democrats or convincing enough for the Republicans in order to fill the gap between the two. In response to the Republican's criticism, especially on the part of the Tea Party supporters saying that the country can no longer afford such outlandish spending at the time of unprecedented budget deficit of $1.5 trillion and the national debt almost reaching the GDP level (14 trillion dollars) the president suggested freezing all government spending for the next five years.
The conservative critics of the address believe that, on the one hand, the president speaks about freezing the spending, but, on the other hand, his proposal regarding the investments in education, infrastructure, alternative energy and competitive ability of the American economy is nothing but a masked form of increasing the government spending, which in principle is a continuation of the policy pursued over the past two years. Additionally, in their opinion, the President will not give up his attempts to increase in the future the taxation of the rich and the super-rich and raise the taxes for the big business, in particular, for the oil companies.
The president's call for uniting the nation in response to outside challenges was vivid but not quite justifiable for many, as was the case with the launching of the Soviet Sputnik, to which the John Kennedy administration responded with the Moon Program. The Soviet Union's space program and the possibility of the USSR's technological superiority over the United States posed an existential threat for the US. It was this very threat that brought the American people together and mobilized the country for an adequate response to the Soviet challenge. Today's challenges have a totally different origin and unfold in a totally different international environment. Americans are unlikely to have heard something new, and it is unlikely that they will be motivated to mobilize because Korea has faster internet service, because Chinese goods are cheaper, or because in the schools of many countries of the world the level of math instruction is higher than that of the United States. The grim reality of today's globalized world is such that for a third year in a row the U.S. economy cannot cope with the high unemployment rate and the U.S. business creates new jobs outside of the United States. In this regard, the appointment of Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, with most of its employees working outside of the United States as the head of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is a noteworthy event.
The president's attempt to convince the U.S. public that the state, same as in the past, continues to be an important political force which brought about such important technological breakthroughs as the Moon program, the development of the internet and many others do not seem convincing to the opponents of the big state. Today, same as in the time of the Reagan counter-revolution, the main watershed between the Democrats and the Republicans lies along the issue of the role and place of the government. While the Democrats still consider the government as an effective institute for the solution of social and economic problems, an institute which can respond to the challenges of the twenty-first century facing the U.S., the Republicans continue to regard the government, same as Ronald Reagan did, not as an effective tool for problem solving but as yet another problem that awaits its resolution.
If in the next few months no significant changes take place in the employment area and if the unemployment rate does not go down to at least 7 percent, then, in the opinion of many analysts, the President will have a hard time arguing for his economic course. In turn, this means that he will be unlikely to regain the confidence of independent voters. This means that the Republicans' dream of turning Obama into a one-term president may be quite realistic, provided, of course, that the Republicans are able to nominate a candidate for the White House in the remaining time who will be able to bring together the Republican Party which is rather split at this point.