Middle Class Darlings of the SOTU Address

Watching President Obama deliver the State of the Union address on Tuesday evening, two oft-repeated words began to irk me a lot: "middle classes". Tsk. Who are these people?

As I wrote in the first paragraph of a post in 2013 (here):

The USA's version of "middle class" is different from the UK's version. Here the middle class seems to refer to anyone not living in actual poverty, yet not of the 1% of elite bankers, financiers, corporate CEOs, "celebs", multimillionaires and billionaires. In the UK middle class is understood to relate to the professions: doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists - that sort of thing. Ordinary folk, tradespeople, craftsmen, office workers, factory workers, store assistants etc. are the working class.

If the President wants to help a group of people in this country, the poor should be front and centre of his focus, not the "middle classes" who, if I understand the term correctly, are already on their feet and striving, in their dreams, to become part of the 1%, or at least to claw their way into the top 10 or 20%.

A comment elsewhere online made me smile: with regard to the drinking games some like to play to ease their way through SOTU addresses by taking a swig each time a certain word or phrase is mentioned. A commenter observed that on Tuesday evening it'd have been be wise, if someone had chosen the term "middle class" to be the catalyst to imbibe (again... and again) then doing so only on every third mention of "middle class" would be required, if he/she were not to be found completely legless at the intoning of "...and God bless America", or as stated on Tuesday, "God bless the country we love" (I wonder why he didn't say "America" this year?)

Just to get a last bit off my chest: "values", he said...what values? What the heck ARE American values? Oh yes and...far as I can see, neither the USA nor its people are "exceptional". The USA is beautiful - but so are countless other countries, its people, on the whole are pretty nice, but so are the people of most other countries. Dang, but I wish Presidents would disabuse themselves of that notion of exceptionalism!

S O T U

President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address tonight to the first Republican-controlled Congress of his presidency. White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer has revealed the theme of the speech: "middle-class economics", ways to improve wage stagnation and economic mobility. How much time and emphasis will the President give to climate change? Any bets?



I haven't decided whether to watch the speech or wait until tomorrow and read it and weep.

I opened this blog during the second half of 2006, my first experience, as a blogger, of a State of the Union address was in January 2007 - here's what I wrote about it, the post's title was "State of the Hypocrisy". The address was, of course, by George W. Bush:

I'm a foreigner here in the USA, a legal resident, but until such time as I can apply for US citizenship still a foreigner, a British citizen.

I'm interested and concerned about American politics, so I watched all of last night's State of the Union address, and the discussions which followed. I had to watch alone, because my husband refuses to watch or listen to "his" president, so great is his disgust and dismay at current policies. By the time the proceedings had wound down, I was left with a bad headache! Next year I shall follow my husband's example.

As I watched and listened I was amazed at the obsequiousness of both parties towards the president. Many of these men and women profess to detest the president's policies, yet they leapt to their feet at every opportunity, applauded each proposition he put forward. Few, if any, remained seated throughout, few didn't wish to shake his hand and smarm over him as he entered the hall like some great prize fighter, and left, signing autographs for fawning fans along the way. I realise that all of this is "just for show" - but why? Isn't this hypocrisy? I suppose it's tradition. Traditional hypocrisy.

There are more than enough bloggers giving their opinions about the content of the president's speech, so I'll limit myself to one point only - the one which disappointed me the most, and the one about which even I, as a foreigner here, have some right to voice my opinion. Mr Bush mentioned global warming only once, and almost as an afterthought. After outlining plans to conserve energy, reduce the use of gasoline etc. for the stated purpose of reducing America's dependence on oil ..... then...oh yes, one short sentence acknowledging that these measures would help the environment and global warming. He actually said the words "global warming". No acknowledgement though that global warming IS a serious threat. I wonder what Senator Inhofe, our Oklahoma senator, thought about the mention of global warming - he's been declaring, for the past several years, that it's all a great hoax. I bet he was on his feet applauding with the rest of 'em .

Sigh. Al Gore - come back to politics - PLEASE!!!

I must get back to astrology before I blow a fuse!!

Playing this drinking game tonight would require listening carefully to what's being said, but this way could make it more fun! Maybe I'll watch after all - glass in hand.

 Hat-tip HERE