Analysis: President Obama's Speech on the American Jobs Act

President Obama gave an effective speech to the nation, but it could have been made better had he devoted more time to creating a true scope. He gave an excellent description of the problem, especially in stating how weary Americans are of politics. This part of the speech was excellently done, and it highlighted issues that both sides of the aisle were concerned with (taxes, infrastructure, eduction, etc). He gave some background on the issue but most members of Congress are well-versed enough on it that extensive detail was unnecessary.

The details of the American Jobs Act are where Obama began to lose his scope. He spent plenty of time describing the benefits and methods of such a deal, but, as he's been known to do in the past, he proposed how to take care of the solution's shortfalls without specifically listing them. He noted that he'd created a method by which the Jobs Act would be paid in full, but neglected to mention how much money and resources were to be poured into it. He wasn't quite detailed enough; he gave plenty of statistics about this public works project and that many laid-off teachers, but didn't give Congress a walk-through on how Point A, the creation plan, would lead to Point B, hired workers, insisting that this act was a relatively simple matter when such things rarely are. Had Obama been more specific about the costs and logistics of his proposal, it is true that, while certain Republicans would cast aside his plan, he'd probably gain more support overall because of inserted logic. He based too much of his argument on urgency and suffering, which, while valid, constitute two key pillars of the emotional argument, and can overwhelm when they are overdone.

Despite a lack of detail (and therefore the lack of definite scope boundaries) and a relative lack of logical, step-by-step logistics, Obama knew his audience extremely well. I give him props for acknowledging that many Americans are sickened by politics and deserve better from our government. I also give him props for acknowledging Republican concerns and using those to portray his Act as bipartisan. In the end, he came off as someone who, while a little lacking on logistics, understands the problems of the American people and the challenges we face in these difficult times. Overall, his speech was more than adequately effective, if not extremely effective. He may win over those who are skeptical about his knowledge of our nation's woes, but those of us who need more hard detail, such as myself, are still wary of whether this proposal will work as well as he claims. However, despite its drawbacks, I will concede that the speech was effective for the point he was trying to make.