Instead of the “yearly policy recap” that most of history's State of the Union Addresses tend to fulfill, Biden’s address last Thursday was an unpredictable political battle, with multiple conflicts between Biden and Republicans in the room.
According to CNN, Biden referenced Trump 13 times, not directly by name, but instead by calling him his “predecessor” or “a former American President.” Contrasting many of his policies with Trump’s, Biden used the massive platform of the State of the Union address as something of a campaign speech. This relates to the “bully pulpit,” a term from our Government unit on the presidency which refers to the idea of the President using their prominent position as a method of influencing public opinion for their political gain.
Biden made many comparisons between his and Trump’s policies on the economy, covid, reproductive rights, infrastructure, and other key issues. However, when reading CNN’s annotated and fact-checked version of his speech (which I highly recommend), it is clear that some of his figures and bold statements are out of context, or extremely optimistic. For example, Biden noted how his administration added 15 million jobs in 3 years, stating that it was a record. Although his increase in jobs was a record, CNN emphasizes that the context of the pandemic does minimize the significance of the record, as Biden took office right around the time when the economy began to recover.
Not only did Biden reference Trump’s policies, but he also discussed how Trump “bowed down” to Russia during his Presidency. Early in his speech, he also highlighted January 6th, calling Trump’s plots to steal the election “the gravest threat to our democracy since the Civil War.” With the conservative anti-democracy “project 2025” becoming more mainstream in the Republican party, Biden’s bold statement might be more true than most would expect.
Biden’s address contained multiple instances of verbal combat with Republicans on the floor. Margerie Taylor Greene interrupted his speech, yelling “say her name!”, in reference to the death of Laken Riley, a nursing student from Georgia who was killed by an undocumented immigrant. Few Republicans expected Biden to respond to the comment, but Biden did exactly as Margerie Taylor Greene requested - he said Riley’s name, and proceeded to discuss the border protection bill which he seeks to pass in the future.
In my opinion, Biden gave a surprisingly energetic and forceful speech which may have increased his popularity among voters. His speechwriters did a fantastic job of writing an optimistic and fact-based speech which put his last 3 years in a positive light. His speech also felt powerful and action-oriented, while also appearing politically moderate. He denounced Trump without saying his name, and his improvised comebacks to Republicans’ boos and screams were quite impressive. It’s difficult to know whether this will have a substantial impact on the 2024 election, but I believe it was a solid speech as a whole.
Questions for the comments:
Did you see the speech? How did you feel after first viewing it?
Do you think this increased Biden’s popularity?
How do you feel about Biden’s increased use of the bully pulpit? Is it fair to use the State of the Union Address as a political speech?
Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1236782758/state-of-the-union-address-biden-trump
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/takeaways-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/03/annotated-fact-checked-president-biden-sotu/
https://apnews.com/article/laken-riley-biden-speech-immigration-d756dbe1c499c6fd0fc53be04290b371
9 comments:
In response to your last question about the increased use of the bully pulpit particularly politicizing the State of the Union Address, I'd argue that Biden's speech doesn't actually mark an increase. I think the State of the Union Address has historically inherently already been a political tool. Presidents use it to highlight all the progress they've made in their term as president. Trump's own State of the Union Address began with:
"Three years ago, we launched the great American comeback. Tonight, I stand before you to share the incredible results. Jobs are booming, incomes are soaring, poverty is plummeting, crime is falling, confidence is surging, and our country is thriving and highly respected again."
While Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address began with:
"Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought -- and several thousand gave their lives."
In all cases, presidents who hope for reelection obviously intend to fortify their chances by using the large platform that the State of the Union Address provides in order to shore up their incumbent advantage. Overall, I think this is a good thing. I think it's good for the American people to hear of all the progress that America has made in each presidential term, especially the opposing party.
Trump's State of the Union Address
Obama's State of the Union Address
After skimming the transcript, I feel that Biden's State of the Union Address was largely trying to take the moral high ground, but I think there were some definite jabs at Trump and the Republican party. When discussing some healthcare wins under his administration, for example, he says, "with a law I proposed and signed and not one Republican voted for we finally beat Big Pharma." While he never directly names Trump, he makes a point of mentioning (somewhat misrepresenting) the COVID deaths under Trump's administration, pinning the blame on Trump, and calling it unforgivable. It's warranted, but not something I see in Obama's speeches. I think it's normal for a State of the Union Address to highlight an administration's victories. However, the extent to which Biden seems to be creating an us vs them dynamic feels new. I think it's partly a reflection of how politics is getting even more polarized, but probably also because Biden knows that many voters support him only because they want to oppose Trump, and he feels that he needs to play to that for the election.
Responding to your first speech, I did some parts of the speech, and I do heavily agree that Biden (or his speechwriters...) actually did a pretty good job on attempting to promote his campaign for re-election of the U.S. presidency. Because of this, the Address did likely actually add to Biden's popularity, because I think just the shear act of responding to Greene is likely to display to many voters that he does still hold some political swagger and is not afraid to take a stand, as well as the fact that he did list many strong pros of his past four years in office. However, I do agree with Alexandra specifically on the point that the Sate of the Union Address being used primarily to demonstrate the administrations re-election campaign is slightly worrying and a strong indicator of how polarized America is now today, as rather use to both do this and actually address the nation, Biden used a huge majority of time just focusing on their victories.
I think what Biden did makes sense considering he is trying to get reelected. Obviously he is going to use his position now to try and sway people to vote for him, like you said with the “bully pulpit” term and it also makes sense for him to contrast his ideas with Trump. I agree with everyone else that he is using the years to his advantage, as Trump was in office for Covid and it obviously makes Biden's time look more successful in many ways. While I do find this interesting, I honestly think this was all expected because of how polarized America is and how obviously Biden is going to do whatever it takes to get votes and make himself look like the best candidate to unsure voters.
I happened to catch the speech while it aired and found it very interesting. I think overall, Biden did a good job in recapping his administration's accomplishments, as well as setting up a platform to sell himself to the voters in the upcoming election. I do think he did appeal more largely to the democratic party, however I think this just reaffirms the ever-growing bipartisan divide i in the government, evident through the booing and stone faced/shaking of heads of republicans listening to Biden's address. Biden explicitly mentions that though he would do his best to get Roe v Wade back, it would only be possible "If Americans send [him] a Congress that supports the right to choose," highlighting that the voters would need to vote for reps that align with Biden's views, which are highly unlikely at this current time. (An estimated 60 votes in the Senate would be needed, the democrats currently only have 51 seats, with very few opportunities for new seats by 2024.)
Biden's address transcription: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/03/annotated-fact-checked-president-biden-sotu/
I want to add that the State of the Union Address isn't a massive, game-changing political move, as it is sometimes made out to be. Though there were clearly pro-Biden and anti-Trump undertones in the address, as expected, undertones in themselves aren't going to sway an entire nation, or even a large portion of it. Republicans aren't going to automatically go hop on the Democrat train just because Biden (their opp) is talking about his administration's successes. Likewise, the Address isn't going to dramatically boost a Democrat's support of Biden. On a side note, the fact that this year's Super Bowl had almost quadruple the number of broadcasting views as State of the Union Address (already one of the most viewed political events each year) says a lot about how much we care about politics. All in all is to say, I don't think the vast majority of US population puts that much effort into reading into what Biden is trying to convey. If they turn on the TV, and it's on, sure, but I think in general, people aren't as dumb and easily malleable and gullible as they're made out to be.
I did watch the speech that day, and I thought it was one of his better speeches overall. However, I feel the original purpose of the State of the Union has faded away as mainstream media and now social media has grown. Initially, the state of the union was supposed to be a way for the president to convey/inform the public of current events/situations. Now that citizens can just read the news to stay informed year round, I don't think the state of the union serves is as important as it used to be, since it has become more about publicity and campaigning.
I think Biden's State of the Union Address seemed to solidify the idea that he still has some fight left in him, and some gumption for that matter. A big topic of discourse surrounding his presidency has been his age, and the docile-ness and complacency that people seem to associate with him. While that certainly has some ageist undertones, it's an understandable sentiment to an extent. We haven't necessarily seen much "fire" in him, and the fact that he was more forceful and assertive in this speech than he has been in the recent past gives more hope to those who want him to have a second term, but fear that he cannot stand up to the younger, more rowdy politicians. I remember watching part of the State of the Union Address with my boss at work, and him telling me that watching it increased his chances of voting for Biden considerably, as it finally felt like someone lit a fire under him, like he has some hope of fighting back against the Trump-ies and the rest of the government crazies (like Marjorie Taylor Green for example).
Relating to your comment about how Biden said he added 15 million jobs in 3 years and how that was a record, but that CNN said that statistic is somewhat out of context, and gave reason as to why that metric isn't as significant as Biden claims it to be, I think this goes ot show how important "context" is when presidents and big political figures make statements about their progress. They might not be lying about their progress, but their goal is to persuade you as much as possible to support them, so they may leave out important details or context that would otherwise change your view of them. I think in order to be an informed voter, you need to be able to look deeper / beyond what's said, and figure out the context behind it in order to figure out how significant a political figure's achievements really are, in order to get a real image of how good they're doing. As shown, CNN was a great help in this case, but I think in general people should do their own research in addition in order to make informed and calculated decisions.
Post a Comment