(STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS)
OLBERMANN: The president of the United States in his third State of the Union Address. Certainly as a speech it was a strong effort and well delivered, and forcefully delivered from the beginning to the end. Perhaps in terms of content, gained any heft that it had based on what I think is not that much of an exaggeration, principally regarding the economy but in other areas of this nation as well.
The president proposed everything: More fracking, more regulations of fracking, lower corporate taxes, higher corporate taxes, more drilling, tougher drilling codes, he extolled wealth, and he wanted to bar insider trading by congressman, which nearly caused several of them to pass out. More peace, more military strength. He co-opted Abraham Lincoln. He invoked the Bush presidency and its Secretary of Defense and the hypothetical Hilary Clinton presidency, and his Secretary of State. Everything was in that speech that could fit into an hour of public speaking. Not to say that it wasn't meant in most respects heartfeltly, but there was an awful lot in there, and it was in terms of performance, an extraordinary one.
I'm rejoined here at "Countdown" headquarters with the former Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer. Before we get into the substance, you've done speeches like this, slightly different stage, same sort of context, same relative importance. This was a great presentation, was it not?
SPITZER: Absolutely. This is his best venue. He speaks with power, passion, control, ebbs and flows. Has the cadence. Look, he is a master of performance, and nobody can surpass him if the presidency of the next election were to be determined based on the capacity to deliver a speech like this, he would win in a landslide. And as you point out, in terms of structure, my only critique is there was so much in there, that in a way the members of Congress themselves didn't know what is to latch on to, what to grasp on to. Some great applause lines that evoked no response. I'm not quite sure why. In a way the speech read at moments better than it was delivered. And he is the master of delivery, on par with Bill Clinton and President Regan, but it was a great bravado performance always from President Obama. That's what one expects, and that's what we got.
OLBERMANN: For the purposes of people who are not political creatures, and possibly the ones not watching us or anybody else carrying this at the moment, does it — did it straddle that fence between being the campaign launching thing that the Republicans are going to claim that's all that was, and the other part where it was topical, substantial, inspirational for people who don't like the way things are in their lives are right now in this country?
SPITZER: I think the answer to that question will depend entirely on where you sit. It will be a Rorschach test for are you a supporter of President Obama in which you will see this as substance, wisdom, thoughtfulness or if you are not a supporter of his you will see it as pure campaign rhetoric. I think the issue is was it so diffuse. As you pointed out in the beginning, he was for drilling but against it, for regulations but for profits — was it so — in a way internally contradictory and therefore, lacking in a pure singular linear message that he loses some of that. Brilliantly written, appealed and had something in there for virtually every constituency and that is what makes the State of the Union. That is the upside, it's also the risk.
OLBERMANN: Was there one linear thought to it, that whenever he could he called out Congress, he called out partisanship. He did finally — if he's been investing in the idea of being somehow above the fray on the tight rope across that chamber right there. That this was the it paid off for him. He was able to come by and slap over here to his left, and slap over there to his right.
SPITZER: He was able to rap the knuckles of the do-nothing Congress as President Truman had done. But if I think if there is one over-arching thematic it is that he is an activist. In other words, contrast this to President Clinton's State of the Union in which he said the era of big government is done. This is just the opposite. This is President Obama rationalizing, justifying, explaining a government that will do a great deal. I will be populist, I will be activist, I will be there by your side, I'm not going to shy away from a government that helps you. Clearly he believes in it. He also thinks it will get him re-elected. And whether the public buys it remains to be seen.
OLBERMANN: If you were to debate him from a different political point of view, and that was the approximate text of what he would say in the debate, were there vulnerabilities? Were there doors left open that an opponent could walk through? Because I don't know that I heard them going through this and I know from personal experience that he is probably a more impressive speaker ad lib than he is reading off a teleprompter or reading a speech. When he is on his own and speaking, you just hope you're able to be in the same room as him because it goes very fast.
SPITZER: I think the intellectual vulnerability is the lack of limits. He invoked President Lincoln at the end saying we should do that which an individual cannot do better than himself. That is a theoretical line in the sand, but if you listen to the speech at the end I can see Mitch McConnell saying what are you not going to do for us. What's left? Are you going to be telling me what to eat for breakfast? In other words, I think the emotional vulnerability is that he is creating this gargantuan government without limits, too much debt. Now he has an answer it to, but I think that's where the other side will pounce. Mitch Daniels might do that.
OLBERMANN: Several — and we'll be playing that later in the hour. The Republican response from Governor Daniels of Indiana. But there were several touches we were talking about beforehand the likelihood and the excerpts indicated there were things that were clearly inspired by Occupy Wall Street. But there were a couple of things that were really inspired by Occupy Wall Street, including — let alone the no insider trading by members of Congress, which they have never been able to pass since the day the idea of Congress was passed. Alexander Hamilton went we need to make sure we can still get a little money on the side here even if it's only a couple grand. But also a financial crimes unit? This must have been near and dear to your heart when you heard that.
SPITZER: It sounds great, but as someone who's been in that world as a prosecutor for a fair number of years, there are more financial crimes units all over the place than you can shake a stick at. The real question is why have they not produced more until now. I applaud this, it's great, it talks about cooperation with leading state AGs. I thought he might have mentioned one or two of them that had been out there. But is there anything really new there at the end of the day that will lead to cases being made on that particular point, I don't know.
OLBERMANN: As you saw the president made his way out of the chamber, and that concludes the formal part of this, but I did want to point out that while you were watching, this was sent out to American news organizations, "An American Built to Last" literally designed as a blueprint. The whole thing is not done on that although every heading is in blueprint blue to quote Steely Dan, and there are essentially elucidations of many of the generalities of the speech. So as an economic speech in an economic time of some optimism but prolonged downturn, did it — did it to use President Lincoln's term, scowl? Did it work?
SPITZER: I think it set a tone as with every State of the Union. The question is how long does it last? You inevitably as a citizen as someone who wants to be patriotic and who's involved in the politics of this nation, you watch that and the grander the excitement you feel good when you are done. The question is tomorrow morning when we see another headline about layoffs or when we see the Euro is crashing or when we see the reality unvarnished as it is in a speech like this, do we begin to get pulled back? And so the question is, even after the Bin Laden bump after his greatest foreign policy accomplishment, two weeks later he was back down in the low 40s I think it was in terms of poll numbers. How long does it last is I think the better question rather than do we feel good at this moment.
OLBERMANN: That's why you heard at Bin Laden at the start of the speech and 54 minutes later at the end as well. Just because the bumps these days are about 53 minutes long. An excellent point taken Governor Spitzer.
I'm going to bring Jeff Madrick the economist and author. The Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, the author of "The Age of Greed." Jeff, score this for me economically. What did you hear in there that had some heft to it?
JEFF MADRICK: I defer a little bit with you guys. I thought it was a tougher speech than I expected. He went after manufacturing right at the top. A lot of economists, Democratic economists say don't worry so much about manufacturing. He said forget about all those constraints, let me go after the Chinese, let me develop some tax breaks, let me develop some tax penalties. I thought that was pretty impressive. I think it is important to bring manufacturing back. Will he bring manufacturing back? Again, as always you have to wait for the details, but he did go after Republicans in Congress, he did go after big oil. He said some pretty nasty things about Wall Street. And Wall Street doesn't like that nasty tone. He said it anyways. So I thought there was some toughness here, and I think one of the sub themes was the constant mention of jobs, thanks goodness. I think that came through.
What we didn’t really talk about is what I think the Republicans will begin to pick on is whether we have the money to do all of this. I do think as Eliot said it was a statement for government. More than he has done in the past. I think he brought it to the Republican Congress and challenged the Democrats. I am delighted to see that. We started a project on the purpose of government in the Roosevelt Institute because we think that dialogue is so empty, but maybe this is a beginning. I do think he — it was a tougher speech than I expected. I would have liked some more details.
OLBERMANN: Did you think the toughness extended internationally? Everything about the trade enforcement unit, and investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China which of course ended with one of the raw-raw moments of his presidency, our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level I promise you American will always win. It was delivered in a World War Two, Winston Churchill manner as opposed to a Barack Obama manner.
MADRICK: Yeah. It was certainly, Keith, a cheerleading speech. But I do not think the Chinese will be happy about this speech. I don't think this was an empty couple of phrases and everything will disappear. I think he said they are culprits. The fact is there is no free market in manufacturing anywhere in the world.
SPITZER: Jeff, can I disagree on one — perhaps not just a small point. If the administration really wanted to get tougher with China they would do more on the currency issue. There is no question that the Chinese government manipulates its currency, drives it down in value. And yet Secretary Geithner time and time again perhaps for diplomatic reasons that are unavoidable, has refused to say that China is statutorily manipulating its currency. That would do more for our manufacturing base than anything else. They have talked the talks, but haven't yet walked the walk in terms of real enforcement.
MADRICK: But Eliot he is not going to talk about currency manipulation in a State of the Union speech. He's just not going to do it. But he did talk about taking tax action. That in effect does have consequences for the currency. I would definitely like to see them have a currency battle with the Chinese. But I think going after manufacturing right at the top, and talking about China directly was a step in the right direction. And I think it will be helpful for the American economy.
OLBERMANN: How does it practically result in this conclusion he reached that soon there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit and Toledo and Chicago?
MADRICK: I don't know if that is going to happen, but he made a bipartisan, a deal with Seoul to reduce tariffs on certain products. So maybe that was part of the deal, I don' know the details. But je made three bipartisan deals with these individual countries. I myself happen to not believe in that approach, but it may result in that kind of thing. Is the economy going to come back as a consequence of all this? No, we need to do more. But this was a pretty tough speech. I think we should give him some credit for that. Yeah, he promised everything to everybody and there was stuff I did not like. Talking about making serious compromises on Medicare and Social Security for example in order to get his millionaires tax. But the idea that he said that we've subsidized oil for a million years let's cut it out. That was a pretty hard hit on some of those Republicans.
SPITZER: Can I add one other notion here that was buried here which is the use of government as a purchaser to affect behavior. When he talked about using the Defense Department in a contracting context saying we will buy energy from clean energy sources and thereby affect the marketplace. This is non-regulatory way of using government power to change the structure of the economy that is underutilized by our government. It is one of the largest buyers of all sorts of stuff. If it said we will only buy from companies that do A, B, and C it could have huge consequences. They are beginning to go in that direction.
MADRICK: I think that's one of the fresh points that came up. In fact a bit of history. It was the U.S. Army that bought the Springfield rifles that enabled us to develop new manufacturing techniques that allowed us to become the envy of the world even back in the mid-1800s. So it's a continuation of the process.
OLBERMANN: Of course, it was stocking for the Civil War which also enabled the beginning of the military industrial complex. That can be taken too far. One other thing Jeff, he hit infrastructure — all of us have been screaming for years about spend the money on infrastructure. Rebuild these roads before they fall on top of someone in Minneapolis again or on New York or Hawaii. And he discussed nation building here at home. Is that the sort of thing that translates both in terms of economics and also in terms of somebody watching at home saying the 400 potholes I have to navigate between here and my office a half an hour from here, we could do pothole refilling too.
MADRICK: I think everybody understands this is a fraying infrastructure. America has a second-rate transportation infrastructure. And to some degree a second-rate communications infrastructure. He did talk about broadband as well. So I do think it hits home, and it's right about the economy, a better infrastructure is very important for economic growth, and it creates jobs. What of course he didn't do, he really didn't give us a number, he really didn't give us a plan. He talked about using half of the savings from the end of wars. I don't know what the savings from the end of wars are, because we seem to be hanging around all the time.
SPITZER: I would make these observations about the infrastructure issue. First the question is what does infrastructure mean these days. You have transportation, you have communications. The question is 30 years from now what will we need that we should be thinking about now and investing in? Some people are saying high-speed rail may be antiquated. Payback isn't what it should be, should we be doing only broadband. The other question is when do you get the payback? In other words it will not be something that effects this electoral cycle. These are long term investments and hence more difficult for politicians, because you are looking at somebody ten years from now being there to cut the ribbon or see something get to fruition whereas we're paying for it right now.
MADRICK: But I got to say Eliot, few things are as unambiguous of a need as updating the American infrastructure.
SPITZER: Could not agree more.
MADRICK: And it will be a jolt to the economy in time. And I'm not only worried about 2012, I'm worried about the future of the country.
SPITZER: You and I are optimists. We think long term.
OLBERMANN: We'll think long term too. The rest of our hour here in the wake of the president's speech will be — forgive me — will be a quick visit from Senator Bernie Sanders, and also the Republican response which we will be showing you on tape delay at the end of the hour. Right now this is "Countdown"'s coverage of the State of the Union address.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Watch 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' live each weeknight at 8/7c on Current TV.
Find Current on your TV.
