The State of the Union

On Tuesday night, President Obama delivered his fifth State of the Union address, which can be read here. In many ways, this address followed the typical pattern for State of the Union addresses -- touching on a little bit of everything, making arguments for certain policies, and so forth. But in many ways, this State of the Union was different from ones in years past.

To begin with, the President had a far more modest plan than in years past. As a moderate conservative, I was somewhat surprised to find that, for much of the speech, I didn't disagree with President Obama, and I only sharply gasped a few times. This is in contrast to years past, when the President has made far more bold claims and proposals.

Secondly, I took note of how much the President emphasized that he was willing to essentially abandon Congress in his quest to get his agenda done. In years past, that had not been the case -- President Obama, to go along with his ambitious proposals, needed congressional action, and so he had pushed hard for such action. This year, however, he essentially said that if Congress would not help him, he would do everything he could to circumvent them.

Of course, there are several confounding variables, if you will, that would make a difference in the President's address, but that's exactly the point of this post. The President recognized that a change occurred, and he moved to best position himself to take advantage of the change. Since last year, several things have happened. the President's credibility, to some degree, has fallen, especially in light of the Edward Snowden affair and the ensuing scandal involving the NSA. Additionally, the President recognizes an even greater shift in public opinion away from the GOP, especially in the aftermath of the shutdown and the partisan gridlock that had taken over Congress. He recognizes that, in light of the changed political situation, he will be better served saying that he can get things done without Congress than he would be by making bold proposals, which helped him before.

And so, the President made a rational response to the change, deciding to respond by setting himself up as a credible alternative to the GOP and congressional gridlock. This might seem like a rather obvious move, and it is, but such a rational reaction is one that's often not seen, especially in politics. An excellent example: the Tea Party Republicans. The Tea Party's response to these changes is largely to hold the course, pretend that the changes don't exist, and continue on as before. Obviously, that response is completely irrational to any objective person, but the fact of the matter is, unlike the President, many of the Tea Party Republicans simply have shown they cannot rationally respond to the changing political climate, and that outlook is something that could have severe implications for the GOP in the future.