It is simply not worth the time or effort to conduct any deep analysis of Barack Obama's State of the Union charade. The overwhelming majority of its coverage from the "mainstream" media could have been written well before the event. Obama would advance a nanny-state agenda of bigger and more intrusive government, interspersed with patriotic sounding platitudes of individual empowerment and the American dream. In response, the media would laud every utterance from the neophyte president as if he had received it on tablets of stone from the slopes of Mount Sinai.
Yet despite all of the glowing accolades from the usual sources, the entirety of the Obama agenda has been painfully predictable. He intends to "tax the wealthy" and use the plunder to buy votes from America's diligently preserved underclass. The end game is to grow the ranks of the perennially needy to the point that their support for Obama and the Democrats will make the liberal political machine virtually invincible. From such a perspective, Obama's speech was at once an ominous and a smashing success.
Given the scripted nature of this purely symbolic ceremony, abetted by the media with all of its inane fawning, it might seem peculiar that so much energy is now being devoted to the political obliteration of Obama's critics. But such is indeed the case, and the inordinate amount of negative attention directed at Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is indicative of the real threat he and the conservatism he espouses pose to the liberal ideology.
Reaction to Governor Jindal from the media was universally scornful, as would be expected. Even before Jindal began to speak, MSNBC spokesman Chris Matthews voiced his disgust from off camera. But while Matthews' immediate target was Jindal, his outburst was really reflective of the contempt held by the entire liberal media/political establishment towards all of heartland America.
To hear Jindal's severest critics (who, not surprisingly, also happen to be Obama's most ardent supporters), one might presume that the future of the country will not be determined from the implementation of any particular set of ideals, but solely on the basis of how well a speaker can deliver his message, whether or not it contains any substance. It is as if the fortunes of the nation rest on an American Idol contest from inside the Beltway, with no weight given to the particulars of the agenda. And on that front it is Obama, with his flowery rhetoric and far-reaching invocations of grandiose but totally empty promises (the ocean levels will begin to recede), who rules the day.
Governor Jindal sought not to dazzle Americans with sweeping pronouncements, but rather to inspire them with real and worthy ideas. From the opening of his commentary, he made it plain that he would not be engaging in any contest of oratory against Obama. He could leave the extravagant rhetoric to those who have nothing else of real value to offer the American people. Jindal instead sought to reach out with the strength of his ideas. And in the long run, that will remain as the real essence of what the nation wants and needs.
Admittedly, Jindal lingered briefly at the doleful altars of "political correctness" and "bipartisanship" during the outset of his remarks, echoing the standard references to Obama's accomplishment on the basis of race, and the supposed desire for both parties to get along. But in the process, he highlighted a stunning contrast between his own background and Obama's that will eventually define, in the starkest of terms, an ideological chasm that separates them.
Referring to his immigrant parents, which he offered as evidence of common ground between himself and Obama, Jindal then went on to describe his own father's admiration for this nation, its bounty and its potential, jubilantly exclaiming that "Americans can do anything." It is a message that still resonates with Bobby Jindal. He regularly repeated this declaration throughout the remainder of his commentary, applying its inspiring theme to numerous differing circumstances, and the ability of Americans in each case to triumph without the "help" of the power-hungry federal government.
Jindal talked of an upbringing that instilled a deep and abiding love for America in him, which he enthusiastically maintains to this day. This rearing stands in stark contrast to the venom, resentment and outright hatred of all things American that marked Barack Obama's "spiritual journey," spanning more than two decades, under the guidance of the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright. There, as well as elsewhere among the anti-American "community organizers" of urban Chicago, Obama was willingly nurtured on a steady diet of virulent philosophies designed to engender a burning rage against this nation.
Consequently, it is understandable why Jindal will look out across America and see untapped opportunity where Obama will perceive only unfairness or discrimination. Jindal will recognize the potential for ordinary people to better themselves and their circumstances, but Obama will focus entirely on obstacles, whether real or imagined, that ostensibly can only be overcome with the crippling "assistance" of a government program. Jindal will work to free the people from bureaucratic entanglements that only demean and enslave them, while Obama seeks to expand the realm of costly and ineffective federal agencies that ultimately flourish at the expense of the people.
Jindal offers real hope for the future of the nation, which he bases on its past track record of overcoming difficulties and improving life for all. His successes in restoring the region after the devastation of Katrina echo his calls for a national restoration. And with his wisdom and optimism, such a restoration is indeed possible.
Obama, on the other hand, contends that he and his kind must remold the nation into conformity with their liberal ideology, clearly insinuating that unless his agenda is implemented, the prospects for equality and justice are bleak. Day by day, it becomes increasingly obvious that he has no intention of losing his opportunity to wield power, regardless of the real cost it may exact from the country, just as the corrupt and self-serving practices of Congressional Democrats and their cohorts in Louisiana left that state vulnerable to the storm, and hemorrhaging in its aftermath.
Jindal's critics will vehemently seek to make the case that the directness and uneventful candor of his State of the Union response made him appear weak, and that it would be lost among the reverberations of Obama's rousing message. Yet in truth it is Obama whose hollow words will dissipate from memory, once it becomes obvious that they carry no credence. Devoid of any substantial ideas, his singular appeal of ethnic tokenism will eventually fade from memory.
Copyright ©2009 Christopher G. Adamo