State of the Union: What to Expect on Tuesday Evening

How will President Obama address the American people in the second major public speech of his second term? What policies will he emphasize and how will he frame the debate? While the political pundits might be at work trying to answer these questions, no magic wand will tell us what the president will say until Tuesday evening. What we can count on is that there will certainly be a discussion of some of the major agenda items he outlined in his inaugural address: gun control, climate change and of course, immigration reform.

Unfortunately I’m going to anticipate that we will hear much of the same rhetoric in terms of infrastructure, education reform and clean energy proposals without any reasonable account of how he intends to pay for the historic government spending he will propose. Again – I will emphasize that this is just a hypothesis of what the president’s speech will entail, but if the last four years are any indication of the approach he will take, then I feel quite comfortable putting a large wager on my predication. After all, one cannot reasonably expect that the Republican controlled house is going to bend to another request for an increase in tax revenue although that will certainly be a large portion of Obama’s prescription. Fortunately for the president’s supporters, his oratory skills will undoubtedly persuade the average American that his proposals are fair and logical. Outbursts from South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson, who shouted “You Lie!” at the president during a previous State of the Union address, only bolsters the White House agenda as the party of reason, as Rep. Wilson’s tantrum reflected poorly on the Republican party as a whole. Rather, Republicans have chosen an up-and-comer to present their rebuttal message, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whom most party insiders suspect will be one of the front runners in 2016 for the presidential nomination.

The part that Senator Rubio has to most carefully answer is his reply to Obama’s message on immigration reform. Rubio was one of 11 senators who released an immigration proposal of their own which advocated for increased border security and a pathway to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants. That initiative has been bolstered with the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor who this week publically supported a pathway to citizenship for the children who were brought here illegally by no fault of their own. The degree to which Senator Rubio succeeds in crafting his message to the American people in a way that resonates with the broader electorate will in my view largely dictate his future as the leader of the Republican Party. That all begins with his response to the president’s State of the Union on Tuesday evening.

The gun control debate (which I outlined in a previous post on this blog) is certain to make an appearance on the president’s speech as well. With an outbreak of shootings in recent weeks, which was initiated by the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the president is in a powerful position to advocate for wider gun registration and limits on certain magazine sales including an extensive list of assault weapons.

Regardless of the way one feels about each of these proposals, Tuesday night will be an important opportunity for President Obama to set the tone of his second term in the oval office. It is in his annual address to congress and to the American people where he has the opportunity to advocate for the policies that matter to him most. With momentum on his side after an embarrassing Republican loss in November’s election, Obama will certainly grab onto the chance Tuesday night to outline an agenda that will signify the legacy he intends to leave on the White House during his second presidential term.

Entering the Gun Control Debate

On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza marched into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut after killing his mother Nancy. Twenty students and six adults were shot dead that morning with three assault weapons that Adam had stolen from his mother’s home.  The death of so many innocent children on that fateful morning has brought the gun control debate to the forefront of Washington politics.

On Monday, February 4, 2013, President Obama traveled to Minneapolis and outlined his campaign to pass gun-control legislation. First and foremost, the president is after achieving universal background checks. His more ambitious goals include his insistence to place a ban on a long list of assault weapons including the one that was used in the shootings. In his address, Obama sought to respond directly to the demands of the all-powerful National Rifle Association, which seeks to protect the second amendment rights of all Americans. He even went so far as to criticize the gun lobby as unrepresentative of gun owners. As he has done with other controversial legislation in his first term, the president is using the power of social media and his influence on the American people to pressure their members of congress to act immediately in favor of his agenda.

As a country, we mourn the loss of the victims of such senseless deaths at the hands of deranged and deeply disturbed individuals. Any rational person would agree that there is a need to address the increase of gun violence in the United States. The point of contention now is to figure out how we address the causes and potential solutions to such violence. Thus far, the ideas that have been floating around (increased gun control legislation, armed guards in schools, etc.) fail to address the root of the problem: a culture of violence. After all, there is no research to suggest that an increase in gun control laws will lead to a decrease in gun violence. To the contrary, there are statistics suggesting that stricter gun control laws leave law abiding citizens without firearms and enable criminals to be more reckless with their illegally obtained weaponry.

I contend that the root of the problem is cultural. Societal norms no longer restrain extreme levels of violence in the same manner that it once did. Song lyrics, video games, television shows and movies are just some examples of how societal norms have shifted drastically in a direction that indirectly accepts violence as a social standard. Certainly, I enjoyed my fair share of Grand Theft Auto (a video game where players can steal cars and violently rape and kill prostitutes) or Call of Duty at a very young age, whereas my parent’s generation played Tetris and PacMan as their form of video game fun. Perhaps it’s the failure of the nuclear family that has led to instability in childhood and caused an increasing number of teens to turn to gangs for acceptance. Maybe it’s the rapid decline in faith more broadly that has removed traditional values and principles from American youth. I reckon that it is a combination of these social changes and many others that have led to a more violent society and only through a combination of social changes promoting the opposite ideals will lead to a substantial decrease in violence. The point I’m trying to make here is that I do not believe this is an issue we can legislate our way out of through Washington politics. The solution needs to start at home, continue in school (reforming education) and after school extracurricular programs and confirmed through other activities and institutions. We need to return to a society that condemns violence, not one that tolerates it and it is my belief that the solution begins well beyond the confines of Washington D.C.