State of the Union

So that was a good one, as far as States of the Union go.

Whenever the President gives a speech like this, I always hear the same thing from people.

"That was just a bunch of fancy words. He didn't propose anything concrete."

They're right of course. Obama's speech, like every other SotU, was broad, eloquent and totally abstract.

What I fail to see is how this is a bad thing.

Think for a second -- would we really want to see a speech that gave concrete policy proposals?

The answer, of course, is no. Rhetoric is fun. Rhetoric is sexy.

Policy is boring.

While this may be a bit cynical, it's true. But even if that seems a little too Machiavellian for you, consider this: even if a President did somehow manage to make a speech with bullet points detailing how to fix the economy, how many of those points would Congress adopt?

The answer, of course, is we have no idea.

That's because a single man (or, more accurately, a single man and his legion of policy advisers and other assorted lackeys) can't and shouldn't make policy by himself. As painful as the sausage-factory that is Congress is sometimes, there's a reason why laws go through so much rigamarole before they hit the books.

These things need to be open from debate on all sides by all kinds of people. That includes Congressmen, our representatives (if they aren't too busy arguing), lobbyists, the people who work in or work for people who work in the industries (if they aren't too busy buying votes) and us (if we aren't too busy watching Jersey Shore.)

So a SotU isn't meant to be a policy laundry list. It's meant to help the President do what political scientists call agenda-setting.

Agenda-setting: n. The process by which political figures attempt to control what issues and what aspects of those issues are discussed in the court of public opinion through discussion in the news media.

(If you don't like my definition, try this scholar's.)

When the President talks about broad, sweeping issues, he's trying to use the huge podium this speech gives him to shepherd the public into talking about what issues he thinks are important.

Of course, this time around there's only one issue, and that's the economy, stupid. Democrats and Republicans and everybody who ever commented on politics ever agree that's the issue that's going to be the focus of public attention.

There, however, we get into the real agenda-setting battle. We know we need to fix the economy, but how do we do it?

Obama's answer in this speech is thus:

"Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need."

Compare that to Paul Ryan's response to Obama's speech:

"Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth."

For Obama, the way to fix the economy in the long-term -- to make the country competitive with other countries -- is to invest in green energy and education. For Ryan and the Republicans, it's cutting the deficit and letting the free enterprise system work it's magic.

That's the main debate we're going to see going forward. In part because of this speech, the larger agenda is set. Whose nitty-gritty agenda will end up being implemented, however, is yet to be seen.