As the President neared the close of the State of the Union Address this past Tuesday, he vehemently asserted the powerful words: “the state of the union is strong;” standing as an objectively controversial statement in the midst of deep-set partisanship among America’s legislators and people. The President’s agenda setting was comprised of legislation surrounding infrastructure, healthcare, immigration, and trade. Before addressing the specifics, however, the President remarked that these legislative ideas would ideally be met among a cooperative Congress. He maintained that “many of us [U.S. politicians] campaigned on the same core promises,” including a string of abstract policies that have been the subject of intense debate across the country for a number of years. As he dialed in upon each facet of the agenda, he continuously pointed remarks at the expected gridlock within the U.S. House of Representatives, hoping to preempt the imminent struggle among legislators. Justifying these comments, the President charged partisanship with being responsible for inefficiency and derailing economic growth within America. Within these remarks, the President labeled partisanship as “pointless destruction” of what he believes to be an evident avenue to progress within the U.S. Tension filled rhetoric was peppered in throughout the address, as the President pushed for coalition building within Congress, while simultaneously failing to revise or compromise on the highly contested policies found within his political platform, including, most notably, his proposal of a wall on the Southern border. The President urged the Senate to put partisanship aside and to confirm the vast body of nominees that have left positions within the Executive Branch empty for some time. Despite this isolated call, it appeared that instead of infusing his speech with a sense of harmony among the–now partially divided–Executive and Legislative Branches, he focused his efforts on the division across the bodies of Congress. The President then set out the agenda he was interested in pursuing throughout his tenure:
| Domestic Policy Agenda | Foreign Policy Agenda |
| -Ending “illegal” immigration, namely by implementing stricter immigration policies and by pursing the wall on the Southern Border | -Tightening trade policies that favor America more
-U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement in replacement of NAFTA -combat “global free loading” -pursue “economic empowerment for women in developing countries”
|
| -Investing in infrastructure throughout the country | |
| -Lowering the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs on the market | -Make market “fairer” in regard to prescription drugs internationally |
| -Combating childhood cancer | |
| -Implementing paid family leave | |
| -Legislating on late-term abortion | |
| -Investing in and bolstering the U.S. Military | -Push for military alliances to accept more of financial burden |
In her rebuttal Stacey Abrams challenged the President not entirely on the types of issues he addressed, but rather on his approach to such issues. Reflecting on the recent governmental shutdown, Abrams cited the demonstration as a political maneuver that disregarded the very real impact on American lives. She remarked that immigration policy should be crafted with “compassion,” and showed understandable disdain for the current administration’s actions within this policy sector. Finally, Abrams argued that healthcare needed an expansion across the country to protect the lives of Americans. Within her own proposals she touched on the issue of education, calling for legislation to address the immense financial burdens incurred by students pursuing post-secondary schooling. Furthermore, Abrams highlighted the issue of gun violence and the need for gun control in the context of schools within America. She highlighted how despite the assertion of wage growth, wages are still not growing in parallel with the increasing cost of living. To conclude she spoke to the core of democracy, calling for a look into voter suppression across the U.S.
In comparison to my state legislator, I did recognize some discrepancies within the actual issues being addressed. Evidently, the federal government must legislate on issues beyond the scope of state policy, however some issues should have found overlap within the President’s address. The most prominent issue that was left unaddressed was education. Within my state government, it is impossible to find a politician without education on their platform, understandably so, as this issue is so central to the lives of most Americans. However, the president neglected education all together which displays either a disregard for the issue or a view that the issue was not a necessary topic of concern at the current state. However, there was some overlap among issues such as healthcare. Regardless it is clear that my own state legislature may have differing viewpoints and policy initiatives then the current administration.