Posts
It's 2011, and we are halfway through President Obama's first term. Last night, Tuesday night, President Obama gave his mid-term State of the Union Address, and things got interesting, to say the least. After all, his term has been nothing but controversial and all of the heated topics had to be addressed last night, in one way or another.
Congress is divided into classes. These classes are not so much economic or racial, as I've discussed before on my blog, but rather based on beliefs. There are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Tea Partiers and Libertarians, just to name a few. Obama's term has been incredibly controversial when it comes to bringing the classes together, or further dividing the classes.
The divide between the classes, as well as their different focuses, can easily be seen by analyzing President Obama's speech versus the Republican response. Here is a Word Cloud from President Obama's speech from last night, highlighting the topics he focused on:
Obama used the term "Americans" the most frequently, and probably in attempts to reunite the multiple parties as "one people." After "Americans" and "people", what other words do you notice had a lot of prominence? Work took on much meaning in the speech, but then all other words seem about tied. Businesses appears to be bolded, and this was a concept that created further divides between the classes in Congress. During his speech, Obama presented some ideas regarding business that were not as favorable to Republicans. However, he is the President and his party is in power, so must he play to the Republicans? How much of his speech must he use to attempt unification of the parties and how much of his speech can he use to further his (and the Democrats') ideas for the future? Below is the Word Cloud of the Republicans' response:
Congress is divided into classes. These classes are not so much economic or racial, as I've discussed before on my blog, but rather based on beliefs. There are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Tea Partiers and Libertarians, just to name a few. Obama's term has been incredibly controversial when it comes to bringing the classes together, or further dividing the classes.
The divide between the classes, as well as their different focuses, can easily be seen by analyzing President Obama's speech versus the Republican response. Here is a Word Cloud from President Obama's speech from last night, highlighting the topics he focused on:
Obama used the term "Americans" the most frequently, and probably in attempts to reunite the multiple parties as "one people." After "Americans" and "people", what other words do you notice had a lot of prominence? Work took on much meaning in the speech, but then all other words seem about tied. Businesses appears to be bolded, and this was a concept that created further divides between the classes in Congress. During his speech, Obama presented some ideas regarding business that were not as favorable to Republicans. However, he is the President and his party is in power, so must he play to the Republicans? How much of his speech must he use to attempt unification of the parties and how much of his speech can he use to further his (and the Democrats') ideas for the future? Below is the Word Cloud of the Republicans' response:
As it is evident, the Republicans greatly focused on 'Americans' as well, but 'government' also takes great prominence. Big government vs. small government and just how much government involvement is needed is one of the issues that is dividing the classes of Congress. The differences between the focuses of the two parties' speeches are evident through the word clouds.
I believe Obama should be commended for his focus on bipartisanship in his speech. He had a lot of different topics he needed to cover, but especially after the Arizona shooting, he had no choice but to discuss one of the biggest problems in Washington: the disagreement and anger between parties. His introduction was solid in this regard, quoting "It's not secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years.. We will move forward together, or not at all- for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.. That's the project the American people want us to work on. Together." (Did you miss the speech? Do you want to read the script? Access it here thanks to NPR!)President Obama acknowledged the "elephant in the room" right off the bat, and possibly provided a glimpse of hope to improving bipartisan relations in the upcoming 2 years.
What do you think? Did Obama talk enough about bipartisanship and "reaching across the aisle" in his State of the Union? Will the multiple "classes" in Washington cooperate anytime soon? What happens if they don't? Leave your opinions!
I believe Obama should be commended for his focus on bipartisanship in his speech. He had a lot of different topics he needed to cover, but especially after the Arizona shooting, he had no choice but to discuss one of the biggest problems in Washington: the disagreement and anger between parties. His introduction was solid in this regard, quoting "It's not secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years.. We will move forward together, or not at all- for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.. That's the project the American people want us to work on. Together." (Did you miss the speech? Do you want to read the script? Access it here thanks to NPR!)President Obama acknowledged the "elephant in the room" right off the bat, and possibly provided a glimpse of hope to improving bipartisan relations in the upcoming 2 years.
What do you think? Did Obama talk enough about bipartisanship and "reaching across the aisle" in his State of the Union? Will the multiple "classes" in Washington cooperate anytime soon? What happens if they don't? Leave your opinions!
