SOTU: Something borrowed, something blue, something doublespeak

There were just a few patches in Obama's Jan. 27, 2010 State of the Union address I wanted to take a gander at before turning the page. Mostly the "clean energy" portion which bothered me instantaneously, but also the foreign military entanglements portion which, in retrospect, I wasn't even sure I heard, since I started to grow drowsy near the end of the address.

In case you missed the address or have never looked at some of the written version, you may be interested. When I started reading over Obama's first SOTU address, I was surprised by how just the words on the page -- separated from Obama's delivery -- seemed more clear, and not as reassuring.

And in some places, I detect outright doublespeak.

Like calling filthy energy -- coal and oil -- "clean":

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.text.html?pagewant...

[excerpts in italics]

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

Just to be clear, let's define 'doublespeak':

[excerpt]

http://www.damronplanet.com/doublespeak/whatisdoublespeak.htm

Specific Attributes of Doublespeak
Lutz provides several defining attributes of doublespeak:

o misleads
o distorts reality
o pretends to communicate
o makes the bad seem good
o avoids or shifts responsibility
o makes the negative appear positive
o creates a false verbal map of the world
o limits, conceals, corrupts, and prevents thought
o makes the unpleasant appear attractive or tolerable
o creates incongruity between reality and what is said or not said

[end excerpt]

Back to what Obama said in his SOTU address:

But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

Isn't Obama telling us he intends to shrink government exactly when Americans need it most, thereby standing the meaning of government on its head?! Aren't such times of CRISIS just when citizens should be able to call on government to step up and deliver on all the promises made to taxpayers, promises that government is there to accomplish collectively what we can't do alone/individually?

Isn't the time when people are suffering and NEED HELP and programs (like federal job creation programs and even additional federal funds for state assistance programs) just the time the Federal Government should be prepared to help MORE than usual?

I think the answers to these questions is yes, and, therefore, consider Obama's policy statement a form of doublespeak!

(Will any of this belt tightening result in lay-offs and job losses? If so, the cuts themsleves sound counter-productive if no new and more suitable jobs won't exist to pick up the slack.)

Even though the Obama belt tightening proposal does NOT apply to the U.S. military, Obama's SOTU address gives only seven paragraphs to the well-funded military.

The first sentence of the initial paragraph says:

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated.

This is PURE doublespeak. When have the issues of a standing army or, in the more recent past fifty years, the Military Industrial Complex and the National Security State NOT been at issue, NOT been debated consistently, and when have they ever met resolution? And did "the unity we felt after 9/11" DISSIPATE, or was it betrayed and destroyed by war profiteers among others?

Let's continue:

Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past.

Excuse me, but when was this litigation he is referring to? Are we being led to believe here that something was decided in a court of law about the propriety of, say, the illegal invasion of Iraq? How can something be re-litigated if it has never seen the light of adequate investigation or Justice in the first place?

Next, Obama takes an all-seeing position above us:

I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough.

What nonsense is this? It is stated as if many of us were not awake and alert to the fact that certain officials had no concern for the longterm safety and security of Americans and worked to EXPOSE a covert CIA agent and her entire nuclear proliferation section in a premeditated and purposely destructive operation involving numerous key members of President Bush's inner circle. I say such activities prove that there are those among us who are NOT committed to our country's defense. And this is not dismissable as a mere schoolyard difference of opinion, followed by taunts. This is about the real necessity to protect this nation from traitors and war profiteers who care more for their personal power and profits than they care for their country, its people, or its place in the world.

At the end of the initial paragraph, Obama twists our minds in a knot with this:

Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)

This is almost physically painful doublespeak. HOW can "protecting our people and upholding our values" go hand-in-hand inseparably and aid us to "forge a more hopeful future" if we must sacrifice our values at every turn of the process which is referred to as defending our nation? If we must bite our tongues and restrain all criticism of this process, how is THAT maintaining our values? (For Obama is not referring to the Right alone in his criticism, but to the Left as well. It seems that the omniscient vantage point the President has taken is from the Corporatist position that is quite inappropriately being portrayed as "the middle" when it has NOTHING to do with the political spectrum, but is purely an elite ("royalist" as FDR called it) vantage point! And is possibly the vantage point in an endgame called globalization.)

Despite results of our own intelligence agencies that say there are but hundreds at most of these "terrorists", it seems Obama embraces the Bush "Global War on Terror" without using the Bush vocabulary:

That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.

Obama minces words when he says his administration has "prohibited torture", because kidnapping, disappearing and rendition are a type of psychological torture, and psychological torture is also prohibited by the international laws to which we've agreed.

And what is the source of the Afghans' problems as painted in this next word picture?:

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

It is hard to say what the source of Afghanistan's problems is from this -- accept that it can be cured by our recreating Afghanistan in our image -- a National Security State with the strongest class having control over a U.S./western imperialist-empowered military. Those "difficult days ahead" will concern only those who do not adhere obediently to this agenda, or die enforcing it.

In the next paragraph, Obama continues the Bush al Qaeda myth, and creates a new myth that Iraq somehow will be sovereign in a world even though it is NOT free of the hegemony of its illegal invader/occupier:

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)

So, if all our troops are coming home, who will be occupying the humongous bases we have constructed? Aren't Americans footing the bill of contracts for private mercenaries? If all our troops are coming "home", why are they going into Afghanistan? Also mentioned here is the 'hold elections' neo-imperialist democracy formula which promises democracy, but only within parameters decided by a few.

The next paragraph seems to be a salute to the troops, but when one remembers that so many of the troops are on a fourth or fifth (is it even sixth by now?) tour of duty occupying hostile territories, this falls horribly short of addressing their desperate need to be given relief from "endless war, endless combat":

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world –- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. (Applause.) That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last year. (Applause.) That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families. (Applause.)

Next is the closest Obama comes to pressing the "fear" button. And as the paragraph unfolds, it becomes clear that the intent is to prepare the American people for fearing those who will be next to receive U.S. military wrath in the 21st Century -- Iran.

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -– the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)

Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)

That's the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people.

U.S. tinkering in foreign nations has proven to be a destabilizing force for many nations -- most notably in Central and South America, the Philippines, Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not reassuring to see the U.S.'s foreign "engagement" described as resulting only in "common security and prosperity of all people", because it is not in agreement with the historical facts about American military adventurism.

Is the following an attempt to make corporatist 'globalization' the only method to use for attaining a 'lasting global recovery'?:

We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery.

I don't even know what to make of this next sentence in the address. What can this possibly mean? Iran attempts to demonstrate it can master nuclear technology (the nuclear technology which Obama earlier in the address claims is an answer to clean energy), and yet this sentence indicates science, education and innovation need to be promoted in Muslim communities with our help? As if the Muslim world has no resources of its own?:

We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation.

And, even though Obama went to Copenhagen, there is just one short sentence for 'climate change'? But since the primary 'solutions' the U.S. has to offer the world are phony "clean" energy in the form of coal and nuclear fission -- maybe such a short sentence was the only way to go:

We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change.

The simplicity of the following sentence belies the complexity of the U.S.'s role in forcing corporate agribusiness techniques, GMO seeds, and financial blackmail down the throats of farming classes the world over; it belies the role that U.S. foreign aid plays in guaranteeing worldwide profits for the pharmaceutical giants:

We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

In the following quote, what is the significance of the this mention of 60 years specifically? Something to do with the start of U.S. foreign aid? I don't get it:

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)

Regarding Haiti, his words skim over the FACT that relief materials were held back from their destinations by U.S. military in Haiti. His words skim over the FACT that there are little girls in Afghanistan who will NEVER go to any school because those little girls were (and are being) killed with U.S. munitions and drone attacks. If America always stands on the side of freedom and human dignity, why are the corporations the ones aided first before the U.S. citizenry during the current U.S. economic crisis?

The following contains many reassuring highnotes, but all became hollow sounding when I read his words stating that the protections of the law are reserved for those who are never charged with wrongdoing or other such proof of abiding "by the law"! Is this a warning that if one toes-the-line and bows to CONFORMITY without dissent, that one will be spared punishment?:

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

Is this the promise he refers to at the beginning of the next paragraph?:

We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)

As others have pointed out, Obama could correct/repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell with an executive order and save alot of time and help the Dems out, but it appears he does not have shoulders broad enough to do that, and would rather see many Dems go under in the Rightwing homophobic controversy this is sure to stir up on state and district levels.

As for the following promises, let's hope these are departments that don't feel the blows of the cost-cutting axe:

We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -– so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)

To which ideals and values is Obama vaguely referring in these next paragraphs? They seem to be values confined to work ethic, money, and capitalist issues alone, as I don't see reference to other types of ideals/values here:

In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.

The next two paragraphs seem candid; Obama speaks directly to the Congressmen and Senators, ignoring the 48 million watching him on TV:

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -– our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government –- still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.

Obama began the address acknowledging the seriousness of our national economic plight and now winds up a speech by returning to his campaign speech mode. He peppers it with some defensiveness, some attempts at practical wisdom, and some word pictures (none of which acknowledge the growing numbers of homeless camps and tent towns, suicides of veterans, or individuals denied medical treatment in hospitals paid for in large part by their tax dollars!); his images are upbeat but hardly reflect the URGENCY of the situation:

I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it.

But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

The parts of this address that dived headlong into doublespeak take the shine off the parts that seemed forthright. Overall, I do not feel reassured.