Mostly positive and hopeful news coverage leading up to President Obama’s State of the Union address did not carry over the next day on the editorial pages of national papers.
Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal editorials reacting to the address called on Obama and congressional Republicans, respectively, to abstain from political compromise.
“There is one other thing [Obama] must do: Resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise,” wrote the Times’ editorial board. “Give-and-take is part of the legislative process, but trade-offs amounting to Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable. Gridlock seems almost foreordained over the next two years. Mr. Obama should do nothing to confuse the voters as to where the responsibility lies.”
The Journal made the same argument but put the onerous on the GOP. “If Mr. Obama won’t make any concession to political reality, then Republicans are under no obligation to take his agenda seriously,” it said. “For their own peace of mind, they should ignore his [policy proposals] and prioritize something that really would help the economy.”
In his speech, Obama made several policy proposals, including a tax increase on high-income earners and a way to provide two-years of community college, paid for by the government. He also taunted Republicans over having won his two presidential races and his administration’s oversight of an economy that, by some measures, is showing signs of recovery.
The Washington Post published a more resigned editorial in response to Obama’s speech. “[T]he potential of bipartisan agreement on [Obama’s tax proposals] is basically zero,” read the piece. “That doesn’t mean Mr. Obama should hold his fire; he’s right to make his case. … It does mean, though, that Tuesday’s speech, despite the president’s peroration on national unity, was mostly about heightening the contrast between the two parties, not converting the economic upturn into momentum for bipartisan action.”
Echoed USA Today: “Obama’s speech was not one directed at moving legislation this year or next. Rather, it was an effort to shape the debate in coming years. Given the scale and persistence of the problem, that debate is long overdue — even if the solution is elusive.”
