State Of The Union Analysis

On January 24^th 2012, President Barack Obama presented the world with his 2012 State of The Union address. In his speech he focused on many issues such as our economy, the employment rate, the education system, as well as on stimulating jobs for the many Americans who have had to suffer from our recent recession. Along with speaking about these issues, he challenged and encouraged government officials to take charge and help rebuild the mounting economy, which would allow for Obama to successfully target the promises that he made in 2008 when he first took office as the President.

In his speech he focused majority of the beginning portion around the United States economic history, while showing the progress that it has made here today in 2012. While some tend to bash him down and view him as being ineffective as leader and President of our nation, President Obama quickly reminded the audience of the conditions for which he had to deal with when he initially took office. Six months prior to him taking office nearly 4 million jobs had been lost, as well 4 million more jobs being lost a few months into his presidential reign. On a more positive note, after the frightful first few months of his presidential campaign the employment rate increased due to advances in manufacturing. With these advances, millions of jobs were created for United States citizens which ultimately facilitated in our economy improving in the right direction.

In his speech he said “The state of the union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to go back now”. A primary focus that Obama discussed during his speech was the idea of this superlative country and economy. The economy and country that we live in by his expectations is one which “everyone is given a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules”. From a democratic standpoint the focus on equality and fair opportunity is no surprise, but the example of “the Buffett rule “that he portrayed was even more of a reason to fight for change and equality. This “Buffett rule” showed that people making millions of dollars in today’s economy are in fact held to lower tax expenditures then the average working secretary who is perhaps considered to be lower middle class. Not only is this statistic troubling and unfair, rewarding millionaires for being rich and punishing low and middle class citizens for not being as financially affluent seems to be morally erroneous. The significance of President Obama comparing millionaires such as Warren Buffett to average working citizens such as secretaries was not to make anyone seem inferior or superior, but rather to show the shift in American culture where “equal opportunity is more powerful than is equality of wealth and income”.

Besides the facts and evidence of progression as a nation, the way in which President Obama presented his speech to his audience was one in which I found abundant. While many people who watched the speech were waiting for him to praise the democratic view, and bash down the republican way, he instead did neither. Instead he encouraged the audience and the millions watching at home to focus less on political party, democrat or republican, but rather on finding a common ground that everyone could agree on. In regards to political party he believed that we need to “end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction”.  What is meant by this is simply that we as a nation are at its strongest when we are united as one. And when we are united and together as one strong and collective body of citizens, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish or achieve.

When comparing President Obamas State of The Union speech to a theoretical model for which we have discussed in class so far, I strongly believe that Roland Barthes’s ideals apply greatly with those of Obamas speech. The French theorist Barthes in his essay entitled “Death of the author” strongly disagrees with the tradition ideals of writing; where the central focus is on the author, but rather suggests that the text itself should be the stronger focus. Barthes believes that “the author is never more than the instance of writing, just as “I” is nothing other than the instance of saying “I”: language knows a “subject”, not a “person” (145). When comparing the President’s State of The Union speech to Barthes approach, he focused on the people rather than on himself; which symbolically illustrates the United States citizens as being the text or work or writing, and himself as being the author or creator of the work. Barthes disagreed with the traditional approach of focusing on the author because he felt that by centering ones focus on the author “imposes a limit on that text. (147).