Everyone knows that Democrats are not business friendly. (but see below)
The traditional frame is that business needs low taxes and no regulation to prosper Somali-style. That's a Republican frame
On the front page we have this quote of Obama's:
Our government has an obligation to make sure that America is the best place on Earth to do business – that we have the best schools, the best incentives to innovate, and the best infrastructure.
Although Susan Gardner chides him gently, I think that Obama has a winning rhetorical frame for Democrats generally....
I believe that in the realm of the stereotypes Americans hold of Democrats and Republicans, Republicans are more pro-business and better for the economy. (As usual, stereotypes ignore facts: Democratic Presidents beat Republicans in terms of real GDP growth with an average of 18.9% over their terms v 11.2% , or that the Dow Jones growth under Democrats beats Republicans 47% to 32% see this for source data)
Life's commitments forces this to be short, but I see here a frame which could define the difference between Democrats and Republicans. It is a frame that could break the stranglehold Reagan rhetoric has on the American debate.
Why?
Because it takes a village to support a business.
Buried in it is a key recognition that businesses do not thrive in a decrepit society. Businesses cannot do well without social and physical infrastructure. Businesses require good roads, good communications, stable legal regimes, and legal potections. If this were not true, the vast parts of the world lacking one or more of these things would be crushing us economically. Instead, the countries who are passing us up increasingly are the ones which have these things or are getting them: Europe and east Asian countries. People also recognize that businesses cannot thrive either without well-trained capable people to do the work.
And underlying these ideas, which Americans will generally accept is a reality that Democrats would to well to hammer home: Business cannot and do not pay for this on their own. Instead the people, acting through our government, pays for it.
Business cannot do it alone. If businesses could thrive in the absence of solid public suport, they'd all move to Somalia.
Similarly, businesses need a level playing field where they can rely on each other without having to constantly guard against their competitors cheating, and in reliance that their business arrangements will be protected. The business community needs regulation, because without it a dangerous chaos would ensue. Don't believe me? Ask yourself why our companies are not rushing out the door to head to Russia.
Why "supporting business" with public investment is a better frame
For all its flaws, I think that Obama's SOTU was a brilliant opening to his 2012 campaign and I believe that Democrats would be wise to hitch their wagons to it. It offers a positive vision for the role of govenment in society. Instead of simply trying to beat back the "government is always the problem" frame, Obama here launches a subtly different frame that creates a positive vision for the future of which government is a necessary part
It shifts the terrain from one of whether businesses are the enemy of the people or not (which I fear we lose that debate) to one of whether business can do it alone in the modern era or whether society plays a role in supporting businesses to create the environment in which they can thrive.
Obama's "supporting business" and "win the future" frame tap into the conservative notions that "the business of America is business" and of American exceptionalism moving proudly into a bright future and turns them to a more positive end. This frame sees the Republican's Reagan myth and raises them a Kennedy.
It takes what a great number of Americans already accept without thought (business is good) and uses that as a basis for arguing for a different vision for American society.
Why this is also a problem
Now, lest you mistake me for a fan of Obama's, I will agree with Susan's great point that we should talk about education as a great end in itself and as something more than a means to producing worker bees. There are two related issues here, ones which are growing increasingly familiar.
By building on what Americans already accept, it reinforces it. Obama's frame is great medium term politics, but because it continues the glorification of American business it could uncut his ability to then regulate the many terrible abuses of American businesses. In that sense, it seems to represent the same short term success traded off against long term progress that drives sanctimonious purists like myself nuts.
[To a certain extent, If Obama is clever, he could justify his regulations as a levelling of the playing field by punishing businesses that "cheat" in order to allow smaller nimbler businesses to stand a chance in a divide and conquer strategy. If he presents too big to fail business as the enemy of small and medium sized businesses, some regulation may follow]
By focussing on business, other key values will fade into the background
Public investment and better regulation are not the only problems we face, or even the most pressing ones. While this strategy may win the day in getting more public investent and more effective regulation, it takes the spotlight off of the bigger issues we face in America. While we may differ in our choices, I think we all recognize there are bigger issues at play than economics.
Take, for example, climate change and economic inequality and racial injustice in America. Neither flow as pressing issues from a simple focus on economic competitiveness, but from a moral standpoint both completely overshadow the importance of the health of American businesses. Boosting economic growth by a couple of percent for a decade or two is a piss poor stupid thing to trade against the extinction of a third of the species on earth. Even if it isn't economically beneficial to deal with climate change, it is morally wrong to fail to do so. An economic competitiveness focus also will take attention (again) from the deep seated and persistent problems of the terrible disparities and injustices that remain for the disadvantaged in our society. Again, perpetuating white privilege (for the record, few Americans enjoy more privilege than I do.) and persistence of an underclass in our society for the sake of some extra economic growth is morally wrong. Slavery and child labor might have boosted economic growth too, but that is no argument that either should be allowed to exist.
Thus, while it may make for clever rhetorical strategy to focus on "supporting business" it runs a real risk of taking our eye off the ball.
On Balance
Like this entire community, I am divided. In the end, I see the value of Obama's approach to "supporting business" as at least creating a space where Democrats can again sieze the credibility as simply showing strength and instilling confidence. I hate to say it, but I think Americans are not so far removed from our stone age human origins that the body politic does not first size up potential leaders by whether they can beat up the other guy. By presenting the positive, vigorous, forward looking vision, this frame probably represents a reasonably good tactical approach going forward. Would I prefer a leader who acts out of a clear moral authority instead? Sure, but I think we recognize that such leaders are rare, and when the attempt fails, the result is not good.
I am interested to hear what you think we should make of Obama's new strategy.
As a far more capable diarist than I often says
"The floor is yours"