2012 State of the Union Address Lacks Reality Contact

Politico.com has made a big deal of the fact that Obama's speeches tend to be written at an 8th grade comprehension level, and the recent State of the Union address clocks in at 8.4 according to the  "Flesch-Kincaid readability test — the third lowest score of any State of the Union address since 1934." 

The speech delivered in 1934 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a sharp contrast to this recent effort, though equally clear. The difference is in the degree of reality contact, not language. At the start of his second year as president, Roosevelt was able to say:

"...our people seek a greater opportunity for humanity to prosper and find happiness. They recognize that human welfare has not increased, and does not increase, through mere materialism and luxury, but that it does progress through integrity, unselfishness, responsibility, and justice.

In the past few months, as a result of our action, we have demanded of many citizens that they surrender certain licenses to do as they please in their business relationships; but we have asked this in exchange for the protection which the state can give against exploitation by their fellow men or by combinations of their fellow men....

The overwhelming majority of the banks, both National and State, which reopened last spring, are in sound condition and have been brought within the protection of Federal insurance. In the case of those banks which were not permitted to reopen, nearly $600,000,000 of frozen deposits are being restored to the depositors through the assistance of the National Government...

You recognized last spring that the most serious part of the debt burden affected those who stood in danger of losing their farms and homes. I am glad to tell you that refinancing in both of these cases is proceeding with good success and in all probability within the financial limits set by Congress."   State of the Union 1934

While President Obama gave his speech, leaders from around the world gathered in Davos, Switzerland for the annual World Economic Forum. What they have to say about the the leadership of the US is a sharp contrast to the Obamas speech.  Among the many reports generated by the Forum is the Global is the  Global Competitiveness Report, assembled under the leadersip of of Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin at Columbia University, with a team of international scholars.

"Since 2005, the World Economic Forum has based
its competitiveness analysis on the Global Competitiveness
Index (GCI), a highly comprehensive index for measuring
national competitiveness, which captures the microeconomic
and macroeconomic foundations of national
competitiveness.
We define competitiveness as the set of institutions,
policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of
a country. The level of productivity, in turn, sets the sustainable
level of prosperity that can be earned by an
economy. In other words, more competitive economies
tend to be able to produce higher levels of income for
their citizens. The productivity level also determines the
rates of return obtained by investments (physical,
human, and technological) in an economy. Because the
rates of return are the fundamental drivers of the
growth rates of the economy, a more competitive economy
is one that is likely to grow faster in the medium

Ultimately, the study presents a ranking of national economies based on 12 components, or pillars, defined in the report. The components are weighted, and the economies of the world are scored and ranked by a rather sophisticated, but well described system. Briefly, the "pillars" are:

First pillar: Institutions
- must be fair and transparent

Second pillar: Infrastructure
- quality roads,railroads, ports, air transport and communications networks

Third pillar: Macroeconomic environment
- the stability of the macroeconomic environment (here, based on a preference for low deficits and clear exit strategies)

Fourth pillar: Health and primary education
- Investment in the provision of health services is thus critical for economic, as well as moral, considerations

Fifth pillar: Higher education and training
- crucial for economies that want to move up the value chain beyond simple production processes and products

Sixth pillar: Goods market efficiency
- from a free market perspective, which Obama embraces in practice.

Seventh pillar: Labor market efficiency
- "workers are allocated to their most efficient use in the economy and provided with incentives to give their best effort in their jobs. Labor markets must therefore have the flexibility to shift workers from one economic activity to another rapidly and at low cost, and to allow for wage fluctuations without much social disruption"

Eighth pillar: Financial market development
- channel resources to entrepreneurial or investment projects with the highest expected rates of return rather than to the politically connected

Ninth pillar: Technological readiness
- the agility with which an economy adopts existing technologies to enhance the productivity of its industries, with specific emphasis on its capacity to fully leverage information and communication technologies (ICT) in daily activities and production processes for increased efficiency and competitiveness.

Tenth pillar: Market size
- exports can be thought of as a substitute for domestic demand

Eleventh pillar: Business sophistication
- greater opportunities for innovation are created, and barriers to entry for new firms are reduced

Twelfth pillar: Innovation
- "Innovation is particularly important for economies as they approach the frontiers of knowledge and the possibility of integrating and adapting exogenous technologies tends to disappear"

The rankings given in the report aren't simple, but here are the top ten, when all factors are combined. The US has ranked far below the remainder of the top 10 in terms of "Basic Requirements" - I've included this score after each of the top 10, since it's the main difference you'll see in the detailed report.

Switzerland 2

Sweden 4
Singapore 3
United States 32
Germany 6
Japan 26
Finland 5
Netherlands 9
Denmark 7
Canada 11

You should download it to see the complete picture. I myself prefer the World Social Forum, but the WEF provides some useful material.

The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011

What they're telling us is not much different than what Europe was telling us during the reign of  Otto von Bismarck -  treat your workers well and you will prosper. Bismarck was far ahead of the US in providing for workers, eager to head off the threat of socialism:

"Between 1881 and 1889, Bismarck promoted laws regarding social insurance and working conditions, to prevent attraction by Germans for socialism. A law was passed compelling employers to insure their workmen in case of sickness or accident. Laws regulating working hours and working conditions were passed. Compulsory insurance against death and old age were introduced. Welfare was provided for widows and orphans."
   http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h49soc2.htm

Ok,  the digression ends here. The careful analysis above rates us as the 4th most competitive economy in the world, in spite of underlying basic flaws. In his speech, Obama calls for job training:

"Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. "

Here he is basically on the right track, but this is too little too late and could have been had while Congress was run by his own party, instead of a Congress elected after his failure to head off the effect of Citizen's United. This is not the same as creating an agile workforce that continuously retrains, and can be moved from a defunct industry to one that meets future needs. The simplicity of his language is not what disturbs me, it is the poverty of his analysis.

Then, he offers more double speak on immigration:

"Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens."

The fact that he deports them in record numbers makes me doubt his concern, and sometimes "removal" is preceded by  years of detention under inhumane condition in domestic "black sites". I know for a fact there is one deep in the swamps of Alabama - I know someone who was released from there. And his experience in not unusual, not under this administration. As Congressman Luis Gutierrez has insisted for 3 years, these detentions and deportations could have been stopped with a stroke of the President's pen, like so many other injustices that continue this day.

Where I really differ with the President is in this passage. Consider it in context:

"The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back. 

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way. "

(I will grant him the part about Israel, our hands drip with the same blood. We have been partners in crime, more than ever.)

The fact that you weren't George W. Bush gave the world some hope during the first few weeks of your presidency, even after appointing Rahm Enamuel to run your cabinet. Brute force does not equal leadership. "Winding down the war in Afghanistan" is 3 years behind schedule, and our basic needs have suffered. Now we have no choice but to face reality. We can hear the echoes from Davos and Porto Alerge, and mind you, the ones from Davos are the friendlier ones. The elite among the world's capitalists do not acknowledge the "leadership" you assert, and those are your closest allies.

David Roknich

http://IndyRadio.nu