Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Obama's Economic and Fiscal Crises Address: An End, Or a Means to an End?

Bookmark and Share

Although President Barack Obama’s first Address before a joint session of Congress Tuesday evening was pitched by the White House as a "plan to confront our nation’s economic and fiscal crises,” more than 70 percent of his speech focused on other domestic or foreign policy issues.

A Smart Politics content analysis of Obama’s speech reveals, as expected, that the President was much less focused on foreign affairs in this speech than his predecessor, George W. Bush. In his 2008 State of the Union Address, 56.6 percent of Bush’s speech (measured by the number of sentences delivered) discussed the nation’s foreign policy challenges, including Iraq (16.5 percent), national security (6.4 percent), trade (5.5 percent), and terrorism (4.9 percent).

In Obama’s address on Tuesday, only 10.3 percent of his speech addressed foreign policy issues, with only 2 sentences on Iraq (compared to 54 for Bush a year ago) and just 6 lines on terrorism (compared to 16 for Bush).

Obama’s focus was plainly on domestic policy, with 76.1 percent of his speech addressing concerns at home, compared to just 35.0 percent for Bush in 2008.

General Policy Areas in Presidential Addresses Before Congress, 2008-2009

Policy area
Bush 1/28/08
Obama 2/24/09
Domestic
35.0
76.1
Foreign
56.6
10.3
Other (non-policy)
8.3
13.6
Source: Content analysis by Smart Politics.

However, despite being the White House’s selling point for the Address, the economy and jobs (10.0 percent) and the nation’s struggling financial system and credit problems (17.9 percent) barely accounted for a quarter of Obama’s speech.

Instead, Obama spent an even greater amount of his time before the captive American audience on education (12.1 percent), health care (9.3 percent), and energy policy (7.9 percent) – totaling more than 28 percent of his speech overall. In 2008, President Bush spent only 11.6 percent of his speech on these three issues.

Tied together with his remarks on and justifications for government spending (12.5 percent of the speech), Obama seized the moment to lay out some of his administration's bold domestic priorities (e.g. green energy, universal health care), under the guise of, and loosely tied to, a speech sold as a plan to address the nation's economic and fiscal crises.

True, Obama did attempt to make direct linkages between these priorities and the national crises at hand. On the issue of energy, Obama laid out his renewable energy plan in the context of, “making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills.”

But the linkages were not always so clean. For example, Obama claimed the “crushing cost of health care…(would) cause 1.5 million Americans to lose their homes.”

Already heralded as one of the great orators ever to hold the nation's highest office, Obama peppered his speech with several passages of vague language meant to inspire a nation in crisis, and reassure the country that Americans will courageously face all of its great challenges:

“We are not quitters…even in the most trying times, amid the most difficult circumstances, there is a generosity, a resilience, a decency, and a determination that perseveres; a willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity.”

More than 11 percent of Obama’s speech spoke loosely on these general challenges America must face, compared to just 3.1 percent by his predecessor in 2008, who, to be sure, was not known for his oratory skills.

In other words, just as Republicans criticized the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for programs in the legislation that do not seem directly related to stimulating the economy and rebuilding the nation’s financial institutions (to the tune of several billion dollars), so too did Obama’s admittedly well-delivered speech on the nation’s economic and fiscal crises drift off into other subjects and policy areas (to the tune of nearly three-quarters of his Address).

Specific Policies in Presidential Addresses Before Congress, 2008-2009

Issue
Bush'08
Percent
Obama'09
Percent
Financial system
0
0.0
50
17.9
Government spending
11
3.4
35
12.5
Education
19
5.8
34
12.1
Challenges for America
10
3.1
31
11.1
Economy / jobs
13
4.0
28
10.0
Health care
8
2.4
26
9.3
Energy
11
3.4
22
7.9
Taxes
17
5.2
8
2.9
Terrorism
16
4.9
6
3.1
Veterans
12
3.7
6
3.1
Housing
7
2.1
6
2.1
Bi-partisanship
3
0.9
5
1.8
Entitlements
4
1.2
4
2.1
Transportation
0
0.0
4
1.4
Foreign relations (general)
0
0.0
3
1.1
Iraq
54
16.5
2
1.0
Afghanistan
8
2.4
2
1.0
Formal remarks
1
0.3
2
0.7
Trade
18
5.5
1
0.5
Israel
5
1.5
1
0.5
Technology
4
1.2
1
0.5
Religion
1
0.3
1
0.5
Crime
0
0.0
1
0.5
Agriculture
0
0.0
1
0.4
National security
21
6.4
0
0.0
World Freedom
16
4.9
0
0.0
Individualism
13
4.0
0
0.0
Iran
13
4.0
0
0.0
World aid
12
3.7
0
0.0
Immigration
10
3.1
0
0.0
Charities
6
1.8
0
0.0
Judiciary
4
1.2
0
0.0
Natural disasters
4
1.2
0
0.0
Stem cells
3
0.9
0
0.0
Cloning
3
0.9
0
0.0
Total
327
100.0
280
100.0
Source: Content analysis by Smart Politics. Unit of measurement is a sentence.



Previous post: Despite Democratic Shift, Minnesotans Are No More Liberal Than Four Years Ago
Next post: The Unsinkable Michele Bachmann

3 Comments


  • Hope to see some efforts put into the energy policy of our country.

  • I did not hear much about the automotive industry lately. I may have missed it in his speeches.

  • Sure glad he was talking about universal health care. So many Americans can't even afford basic living necessities and he wants to charge them 25% on everything that they buy. Great idea! What an idiot. How can we as a nations pay for the health care costs when we are 11 trillion dollars in debt. There is no way we can afford that right now. The best thing that we can do is stop spending/printing money. We need to stabilize before we can start giving away more government money. Oops, i mean our money.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Strange Bedfellows: A Historical Review of Divided US Senate Delegations

    Over the last century, states have been twice as likely to be represented by a single political party in the U.S. Senate than have a split delegation; only Delaware, Iowa, and Illinois have been divided more than half the time.

    Political Crumbs

    Haugh to Reach New Heights

    The North Carolina U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis may go down to the wire next Tuesday, but along the way Libertarian nominee Sean Haugh is poised to set a state record for a non-major party candidate. Haugh, who previously won 1.5 percent of the vote in the Tar Heel State's 2002 race, has polled at or above five percent in 10 of the last 12 polls that included his name. The current high water mark for a third party or independent candidate in a North Carolina U.S. Senate election is just 3.3 percent, recorded by Libertarian Robert Emory back in 1992. Only one other candidate has eclipsed the three percent mark - Libertarian Christopher Cole with 3.1 percent in 2008.


    Gubernatorial Highs and Lows

    Two sitting governors currently hold the record for the highest gubernatorial vote ever received in their respective states by a non-incumbent: Republican Matt Mead of Wyoming (65.7 percent in 2010) and outgoing GOPer Dave Heineman of Nebraska (73.4 percent in 2006). Republican Gary Herbert of Utah had not previously won a gubernatorial contest when he notched a state record 64.1 percent for his first victory in 2010, but was an incumbent at the time after ascending to the position in 2009 after the early departure of Jon Huntsman. Meanwhile, two sitting governors hold the record in their states for the lowest mark ever recorded by a winning gubernatorial candidate (incumbent or otherwise): independent-turned-Democrat Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (36.1 percent in 2010) and Democrat Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (47.8 percent in 2013).


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting