A week ago today President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. By all accounts, it was not the speech that he had intended to give (underwhelming in the eyes of The Economist) for one obvious reason – the stunning loss of a pivotal Senate seat in Massachusetts a week earlier. Yes, as I mentioned last week (We Keep Your Promises), the same independent force that allowed President Obama to easily carry the State of Massachusetts in November, 2008, was the same independent voter base that prevented President Obama from clearly articulating how he intends to move forward on healthcare.

As a former Independent gubernatorial candidate in Maine – I certainly identify with the silent independent majority that turned back the tide on healthcare reform last month. Just for the record, I was one of the 164 million eligible voters who President-elect Obama addressed in his victory speech when he promised, “to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices. I need your help, and I will be your president, too.” Did I say that there were 164 million eligible voters in America who did not vote for President Obama? Yes, I did.

Voter turnout in November, 2008, was 57%, which means that only 133 million out of an estimated 231 million eligible voters chose to exercise their right to vote. President Obama received 67 million votes, which represented 53% of the 133 million total votes cast. What about the other 98 million eligible voters who never made it to the polls? Is it fair to say that they did not support President Obama? A good question.

No doubt there are millions of eligible voters who would have voted for President Obama if they had taken the time to get to the polls. However, as I pointed out a few weeks ago (So Much For Mandates), it is not wise for any elected official (especially a President-elect) to simply assume the he or she has a mandate when his or her message has only attracted direct support from less than 30% of the voting age population. President Obama received 67 million votes out of a total voting-age population of 231 million. Although his margin of victory over Senator McCain was 7%, he still only received 29% (less than one out of three Americans) support from all eligible voters.

Last week I made a half-hearted attempt to grade President Obama’s performance during his first year in office. I acknowledged President Obama’s big vision and gave him the benefit of the doubt on his promise to reach out to those who did not vote for him. At the same time, I expressed my frustration with his inability to reach across the aisle to acknowledge the potential contributions that the Republicans could make to his main campaign focus – healthcare. As any political commentator well knows, the proposed changes to the healthcare bill would have to be quite radical in order not to receive the support of Maine’s two very moderate Republican Senators (Snowe, Collins).

Even the moderate Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown (MA) ran his entire campaign in direct opposition to President Obama’s healthcare platform. The shift in voter support was dramatic. President Obama carried Massachusetts by a margin of 26%, whereas the unknown Republican state senator from Massachusetts defeated the presumed Democratic successor to Senator Kennedy by 5%, representing a 31% voter swing. In the aftermath of such an upset, is it any wonder that the words emanating from one of the most gifted speakers to occupy the White House in recent times fell almost silent on the ears on many listeners. I confess that it was a bit painful to watch for three reasons.

First, there was an eerie sense of denial in President Obama’s demeanor that was inconsistent with the confident and disciplined politician that I observed on the campaign trail in 2008. I was expecting a more humble and accommodating speech that was in line with his graceful speech in Norway when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. At that time he clearly acknowledged that the award was more than a bit premature. After all, how many Heads of State have been granted such an award after only nine months in office?

Second, during his State of the Union address President Obama often assumed the role of a lecturer or teacher when, in fact, he should have approached the task with the mindset of a student who had just learned a valuable lesson from the silent independent majority. To chastise the members of the Supreme Court, for example, was clearly out of place. President Obama, of all people, should be the last individual to raise the issue of spending limits on campaigns.

President Obama was the first major-party candidate to reject taxpayer funding and, more importantly, the related spending limits, since the system was created. Senator McCain, on the other hand, did opt into the public financing system during the general election. As a consequence, he faced an $84 million limit on what he could spend, putting him at a huge disadvantage compared to President Obama. President Obama raised $66 million more than McCain’s $84 million limit in September alone. President Obama raised a whopping $750 million for his campaign. To add insult to injury, I found President Obama’s simultaneous 30-minute prime time infomercials on CBS and NBC to be a bit over-the-top.

A third reason the speech did not fully resonate with me was because it contained little acknowledgement of President Obama’s role in creating what he has identified as “a deficit of trust.” Before the voters in Massachusetts spoke, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress were fully prepared to use there super-majority, filibuster-proof advantage in the Senate to railroad through a healthcare reform bill along pure party lines that contained not one Republican Senator’s vote. Is this how President Obama plans to “earn” the votes of the 164 million Americans who did not vote for him in November, 2008? His speech writers and advisors need to be telling him to think again in 2010.

My hunch is that President Obama is just too smart not to reconsider his options. It is understandable that he should tell his base not to “run for the hills.” He is correct – we the people do really expect government to solve some problems. As one of the great communicators, he should look across the aisle at the legacy of another fairly recent great communicator – President Ronald Reagan – and learn some lessons from Reagan’s first year in office.

On the day of his first State of the Union address, President Reagan stood before a divided Congress, the Democrats with a 50 seat majority in the House and the Republicans with a 6 seat majority in the Senate. He addressed the chamber with a very clear vision along with the realization that any success would have to be done together. I like the following series of “together” statements in his speech:

“Together, after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their states and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them.

Together, we have cut the growth of new Federal regulations nearly in half. In 1981, there were 23,000 fewer pages in the Federal Register, which lists new regulations, than there were in 1980. By deregulating oil, we’ve come closer to achieving energy independence and help bring down the costs of gasoline and heating fuel.

Together, we have created an effective Federal strike force to combat waste and fraud in government. In just six months it has saved the taxpayers more than $2 billion, and it’s only getting started.

Together, we’ve begun to mobilize the private sector not to duplicate wasteful and discredited government programs but to bring thousands of Americans into a volunteer effort to help solve many of America’s social problems.”

Together, we’ve begun to restore that margin of military safety that insures peace. Our country’s uniform is being worn once again with pride.

Together, we have made a new beginning, but we have only begun.”

At the end of his speech last week, President Obama reminded us: “I campaigned on the promise of change – change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change – or at least, that I can deliver it.”

It now seems clear that President Obama has taken ownership of his “deficit of trust.” If he wants to avoid a radical response to his agenda in November, he and the leadership in Congress must acknowledge a need to not only listen to what those on the other side of the aisle have to offer, but to embrace some of these ideas as reflective of the diversity evident in the American society. This is the only way to build trust again in 2010. Otherwise, Republicans and Independents will make a stronger showing in the November mid-term elections.

On second thought … stay the course.

Popularity: 2% [?]