Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 2:12 PM
I was planning to liveblog last night's State of the Union address, but as the hour approached, your humble blogger couldn't muster the energy for it, and resorted to sporadic tweets instead.
As it turns out, that was the appropriate tack, because my lackluster effort to process the speech matched the Obama administration's lackluster effort to incorporate foreign policy into the speech (FP's Josh Rogin has expertly parsed the little foreign policy content there was). As predicted, there wasn't a whole hell of a lot of international relations content in the SOTU, despite Heather Hurlburt's best efforts to argue otherwise.
Politico's Laura Rozen noted "the seeming downgrading of foreign policy emphasis in the speech," and The Spectator's Alex Massie observed "Foreign policy received very little, even perfunctory, attention." [UPDATE: oooh, Jeffrey Laurenti has data]:
[Obama] devoted just 14 percent of his speech to international concerns – a far cry from George Bush, who regularly devoted half his State of the Union addresses to foreign policy and national security themes (and fully 88 percent of the infamous “axis of evil” address in 2002, which laid out the road map for war in the Middle East).
What attention was paid to foreign economic policy was desultory when it wasn't firmly wedged in Fantasyland.
In fact, let's deconstruct that entire section of the speech -- it won't take that long:
[W]e need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.
We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.
Now, let's see if there's anything of substance in there:
1) "We will double our exports over the next five years..." Well, the President said this would happen, so it must be so!! I would humbly request that the president also decree that the pull of gravity be cut in half. The government has an equal chance of making that happen.
2) "we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets..." The key word there is "shape." I have every confidence the administration will do this, because they make this pledge in every communique they ever issue. It's a tradition now, like playing "Hail to the Chief." Play the music, pledge to work on Doha, and then go about your business.
3) "we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia." You mean, by ratifying the threee trade agreements that have already been signed and negotiated? Oh, you don't mean that? Well, never mind, then.
State of the Union speeches are usually about domestic priorities, and it's not surprising that this one played to type. Still, I would have liked to have seen a more robust effort to link foreign policy priorities to domestic priorities -- because the two are more linked than is commonly acknowledged.
This smells of export subsisides
"National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports,"
Just as we in Europe have killed of the exportsubsidedes , and have begun to gather a mob, finding out where to buy the pitchforks and lay down a plan to scare the off the farmsubsidies, Obama does this. God I am beginning to miss the Bartlett-admistration.
It was a total throw-away, worked up on a napkin in the cafeteria hours before the speech, liable to be forgotten before the Sunday morning talk shows.
..what they said about the Laffer-curve
I don't know what we can export...
Manufacturing in the US being largely gone.
Movies (already one of our biggest exports)? Passenger airliners (another of our big exports),? Cars (you must be joking)? Software (another ha-ha)? Electronic goods (puh-lease)?
Other than wheat, and arms, I don't see what the US has to offer anymore, and even as Obama proposed this in his SOTU, I thought, "yeah. Right."
Mind you, I'm a democrat and Obama supporter.
I have to disagree with you, Professor Drezner, I think this was significant. Why include trade at all if you're not serious about it? You saw how this section played with the democrats. A lot of people here in the Washington trade community assumed Obama wanted to keep trade issues at a low profile, lest he anger his base. Instead, he devotes two paragraphs to expanding trade in the SOTU! He also specifically named the FTA countries, in my belief signalling his support for the ratification of those treaties.
But more importantly, I think it was a positive signal about the importance of trade for Americans watching outside the beltway. If we have any hope of doubling our exports in five years, businesses across the country have to start thinking about how they can sell to the global market. This is where I believe a 'National Export Initiative' can make the most difference. Not directly subsidizing exports, of course, but by promoting 'the export option' to the American people. Oustide of a few prominent examples (e.g. Caterpillar) people both internally and externally don't think of the U.S. as an exporter capable of competing on the world market.
Finally, by calling attention to the benefits of exporting, it makes selling free trade easier. We all know that importing benefits consumers, but most Americans overlook cheap towels and instead focus on jobless millworkers. If we ever want to see real progress on trade issues, trade proponents need leaders that communicate effectively. I believe the President just showed his hand, and that's why I'm excited.
Well, Dan, if foreign and domestic policy priorities are so closely linked, it shouldn't have been that hard for you to parse the foreign policy implications of a speech directed at a country in significant economic distress by the head of a government now spending much more money than it takes in.
It's not that hard to see foreign policy implications summed up in the word "retrenchment." The scope, nature and duration of that retrenchment might have been worthy of comment. I can understand some criticism of President Obama, but expecting him to make foreign policy bloggers' jobs easy and fun is a bit much.
I presume that he (and his speech writer) already know this, but the phrase "in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia." almost sounds like they have geography confused.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(7)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE