Opinion No more Sputnik moments
Obamas big speech to a worried America tiptoed around the fact that the US is now dependent on the rest of the world.
At a moment when the momentum in Washington is driving toward slashing budgets and shrinking government,President Obama argued on Tuesday evening that the politics of austerity,mindlessly applied,would amount to a pre-emptive surrender to China,India and a raft of competitors who are investing while Americans are cutting. He has warned before that America must step up our game, and on Tuesday night he told Congress and the nation that this is our generations Sputnik moment.
To the new Republican majority in the House,the path to restoring American competitiveness the word itself is something of a Rorschach test includes slashing taxes and getting the government out of the way. To Obama,even a leaner federal government must play a central role in guiding the countrys economic future,helping the United States to confront the rising economic powers that ate away at Americas lead while the country was distracted in the post-September 11 decade.
South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do, Obama said,ticking off the list of how America had fallen behind. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports.
Obama is hardly the first president to try to rekindle the spirit of cold-war competition in an effort to force Americans to set aside political differences and join together to face a common threat to their prosperity and security. Americans are prone to cycles of belief in their own decline, Joseph Nye wrote in his newest exploration of Americas status in the world,The Future of Power.
Obama was clearly seeking to pull America out of its latest funk,arguing that no country has a deeper bench,better universities or a more entrepreneurial spirit. But he also portrayed those as fragile assets,and his bet is that Americans expect their government to preserve the countrys lead,a view that puts him in direct competition with Tea Party-fueled calls for a diminished Washington.
In some ways he was reminiscent of the Obama style circa 2008. As a candidate,he prided himself on ignoring the passions of the moment,not letting hyperventilation on cable television or predictions of impending political doom drive his tactics,much less his strategy. His coolness,his detachment,seemed a political virtue after eight years of an intensely ideological presidency.
But this is a different moment,and it is far from clear that the formula that worked so well two years ago retains much potency today. His challenge is to win the argument against those who say that when government intervenes in the economy,it is usually for the worse. While directly hailing the wonders of free enterprise an effort to beat back his opponents charge that he is a socialist in capitalist clothing he made the case that at moments,government intervention has been inspired.
Because its not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research,throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need, he said. Thats what planted the seeds for the Internet. Thats what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.
But that is an argument that President Bill Clinton could have made,and often did,15 years ago. What Obama stepped around is the reality of American competition today that innovation,education and infrastructure are necessary ingredients for global competitive success,but no guarantee. Many of the technologies on which Obama is depending are the product of joint ventures that combine American ideas,European design and Asian manufacturing. That is something few in this Congress may want to hear,much less finance,given that many of the jobs those innovations create do not go to Americans.
We do big things, Obama repeated,twice,as he concluded his speech. That has been a hallmark of America,especially in the past century. Yet Obama has all but said that his biggest challenge is to take a country that often seems to want to retreat into its shell and force it to do big things again.
One of his subtexts on Tuesday night was that doing big things these days may require a bit more humility,a lot more work,and some international partners that Americans rarely thought about 20 years ago but whose competition they have now grown to fear.David E. Sanger
Share
