One of the things I hated about the sitcoms of the late '70s and early 80's were the laugh tracks. Jack Tripper or Maude would say something plainly and patently unfunny, and, from somewhere, an unseen chorus of hysterical laughter would erupt.
Funny thing is, I think I also heard people laughing during classic comedies like "I Love Lucy" and "Bewitched", but, if so, it never bothered me. Perhaps such shows had actual, live studio audiences doing the laughing. Or maybe it was canned, then, too. In either event, I probably didn't notice as much because the laughter had never before functioned as a substitute for being funny.
Likewise, I would suspect that perhaps some of SOTU applause during the Bush years was scripted (or perhaps not, who knows). But it wasn't as jarring, because I remember it as being at major points, points which made sense, and which I expected Republicans — or even both parties — would agree.
But if you want to understand the level of sincerity behind applause at the recent SOTU, all you have to do is listen to, and think about, the uproarious standing ovation this particular set of promises brought:
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.
Roars of applause
It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.
More roaring applause
Look at the second line: these are the exact same kinds of weasel-words he used on the same subject during the campaign. What do they mean? What did he say? Is he in favor of offshore drilling? Were Democrats applauding that? Or was he going to make a "tough decision" to oppose all such drilling? Which would create jobs, how, exactly?
Nobody knew. Nobody could have known. The sentence has no content; it promises precisely nothing and thus requires (contrary to what it claims for itself) no bravery at all. Yet it brought loud applause and shouts of acclaim. Which were obviously as genuine as Maude's laugh track.
By the way, I agree with him about nuclear power — if he means it this time. But even that silver lining has a cloud: that reminds me of the one thing, in retrospect, I agreed with Jimmy Carter about too. Not a positive association.
Like a bad sitcom, much of the rest of the SOTU was similarly phony. Obama characterized the debate, and desire of the American people (contra JFK) as concerned only with what their country can do for them. Obama apologized (and only in a minimal way) as a way of insulting someone else. Obama promised things he had no power to deliver. He engaged in demagoguery while pretending to oppose such tactics. He misrepresented the sincerely-held positions of others.
For example, on our dismal economy:
Third, we 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're going to double our exports? In only five years? During a recession? (The moment of judgment conveniently falling, most likely, during someone else's term.) Really? How? By having a committee (NEI) do something? What? He says they'll "reform export controls". Really? What, are we preventing someone from exporting something right now? Or is that code for either punishing imports, or punishing companies which outsource? Both actions would cause us to shed jobs; this is anti-economic nonsense.
Young Americas portrayed as a generation of greedy, entitled people, with their hands out:
To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years — and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.
Nobody should go broke because they went to college? Huh? So I should be able to go to school as long as I want, in any subject, regardless of how irrelevant, and never have to pay it off?
Of course, he's not really saying that. A loan should only be forgiven if I then work for the government! This is particularly ironic given that government workers are paid much more (easily 20% more) than private-sector equivalents for the same work. In short, he's saying that if you become a part of the left-wing establishment, a permanent Democratic constituent, we'll give you a free education, too. (At the bank's expense, no less.) If not, well, good luck with that.
Since when was greed a bad thing, eh?
The obvious effect of this will be, of course, to make student loans harder to obtain. The subsidies he complains about exist to lower the cost of such loans. Now he's telling banks they're also going to risk losing the whole loan if the student majors in Art History or Feminist Theory and ends up working as a janitor, or starts working for the Department of Motor Vehicles. The cynic in me wonders if the effect is intentional: so that he can then complain about the scarcity of student loans, blame the banks more, and demand unlimited free college education like (cough) France has.
And again, on healthcare:
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.
We, the American people, were much stupider than he ever imagined. He used too many big words. He didn't appeal enough to our greed. He takes his share of the blame for us being so dense. Bad us!
Please, Mr. Obama, condescend to us a bit more! ...
And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what's in it for them.
Yes! That's precisely it! I was worried I wouldn't be given enough free stuff! It wasn't that we were concerned that we'd leave our nation poorer or more in debt. It wasn't that we were concerned about what would happen to the poor people below us on the economic ladder — would can't afford health insurance as it is, much less with a new mandate and threats of IRS seizure. And I certainly wasn't concerned we were instantly passing multi-thousand-page bills, written by special interest groups, that no-one else had read! No, I personally wanted a larger cash payout.
But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.
Um, remember what the Republicans have been saying, until they're blue in the face, about tort reform, lowering barriers to interstate competition, allowing pre-tax purchase of insurance, subsidizing insurance for the poorest workers, and getting rid of state mandates which raise insurance premiums?
No, he's never heard it. And he will never hear it. Because this is another utterly disingenuous, throw-away line meant to imply the opposite of reality: that his plan is the only game in town. It is, in short, a lie. He's not at all interested in examining other ways of getting to the requirements he states.
Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing.
Um, isn't promising that massive new handouts will "reduce our deficit" precisely the sort of "political posturing" he pretends to be opposed to here?
I could go on this way for hours. Nearly every paragraph contains some falsehood, some fantasy, some plan which will do precisely the opposite of what it claims, or some backhanded insult to anyone who didn't toe the line. I have no idea how this played with most listeners, but I hope they're finally getting wise to such tactics.