The NPR Politics Podcast - President Trump Delivers State Of The Union Address

Episode Date: February 6, 2019

President Trump delivered his second state of the union address before Congress and set out his policy goals for the year. Plus the response from Democrat Stacey Abrams and Xavier Becerra. This episode: White House correspondent Tamara Keith, White House correspondent Scott Horsley, Congressional correspondent Susan Davis and editor correspondent Ron Elving. Email the show at [e-mail]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This is Robert. This is Amelia. This is Patrick. It is 11 beautiful degrees in Wisconsin and we are celebrating the end of the polar vortex by camping. This podcast was recorded at 12.02 a.m. on Wednesday the 6th of February. Things may have changed by the time you hear it. All right, here's the show. Wow. I think it's after Patrick's bedtime. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. President Trump delivered his second State of the Union address. The state of our union is strong. We'll break down the speech and discuss the Democratic response, which was delivered by Stacey Abrams. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Scott Horsley. I also cover the White House. I'm Susan Davis. I

cover Congress. And I'm Ron Elving, editor correspondent. So President Trump's State of the Union address, it was his second, though his third address to a joint session of Congress. It came between one government shutdown and what could be the next government shutdown. Or in a government emergency. Exactly. And it is also the first speech that the president gave in divided government, where Democrats control the House of Representatives. Sue, you were there in the chamber. What stood out to you from this speech? I think the image of this State of the Union will linger in that there was a call among House Democratic women led by Lois Frankel, who's a Democrat from Florida, although she did

put out the call to the entire House, not just to women, encouraging them to wear suffragette white to the State of the Union. It was meant in part to send a message to the president. And the image of the chamber, you know, it's already kind of striking because on the one end, you have the Republican Party, which is predominantly white men. And on the Democratic side, you had this sea of white women standing up and a much more diverse crowd. And I think that visual representation was not just about the historic levels of women that helped Democrats win the majority this year, but also the kind of candidates that helped them win the majority. And I'd say a very muscular Democratic Party coming into power saying, you now have a check on your power and we plan to use it.

And also a pretty good sign of Democratic unity. They can follow marching orders or wardrobe orders. I should note that men in the room also were wearing white ribbons as a sign of solidarity. And there was at least one man in a white suit. Ron, what to you was the take home from this address? Like all State of the Union addresses by all presidents, this one was devoted to having it both ways. It wanted to reach out to people who are not supporters of the president but might become so, persuadables as the campaign consultants sometimes call them, but hold close those people who are the president's actual supporters and make sure that those people do not wander off or find themselves disappointed by the speech. And in this particular case, there was a virtual

catalog of things that were clearly outreach issues, talking about defeating HIV within 10 years, having paid family and medical leave. That is a proposal the president has made before, but he brought it up again. Infrastructure, drug prices, kids, cancer, something everybody obviously could really get behind addressing as an issue, and veterans, and the First Step Act, which is criminal justice reform. All these things were outreach. These were cooperation issues between the parties in the last Congress or prospectively in the next Congress. So to me, there is one clip of tape that sums up this thing that you're talking about.

And I want to play this moment where President Trump is seemingly making a pitch for unity. We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction. Tonight, I ask you to choose greatness. So it's not a coincidence that he uses the word resistance, which is a word that has characterized the people who oppose him. And it's not a coincidence that he also chose the word greatness. You might as well put on the red hat that says MAGA on it. Make America great again. Greatness as a word, great as a word, are associated with Donald Trump's campaign. On the surface, the message is, let's all work together. Let's not have gridlock. Let's have greatness. But on the other, if you sort of dig into the language,

it's a little bit of a dog whistle of, let's do it my way. There is a significant reason to be skeptical that Donald Trump is the right messenger for a message of political unity in the country. And I think Democrats going into this speech were trying to lower the expectation that they think that this is going to be some great new breakthrough in bipartisanship. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke to that on the Senate floor leading into the speech tonight. Perhaps even more empty than his policy promises are President Trump's calls for unity each year. It seems every year the president wakes up and discovers the desire for unity on the morning of the State of the Union. Then the president spends the other 364 days of the year dividing us and sowing a state of disunion. Also important

to note that, you know, outside of what the president said tonight in his State of the Union address, leading into the speech, he also attacked the Speaker of the House on Sunday and called her someone who was bad for the country. Today on Twitter, he attacked Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in response to that Senate speech. So again, nice words. The tone of Washington did not change tonight because of that speech. And it wasn't all bipartisan happy talk or even subtle shots at Democrats.

There were some very explicit criticisms of the president's opposition. He talked about abortion. Of every person, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children. He referenced socialism. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. And this led to some TV cutaways of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And there was also just some traditional red meat to the party kind of rhetoric. And I thought this was one of the lines of the night that got the biggest rousing applause from Republicans in the House. We are born free and we will stay free.

Hoot and holler and up and out of their seats for that one. Enchanting USA. And he also talked about the investigations that congressional Democrats will be launching this very week. An economic miracle is taking place in the United States and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations. If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn't work that way.

That was sort of an interesting tack for the president to basically say, we've got this terrific economy, we're going great guns. We're adding 300,000 what they're supposed to be doing. let's have done with this and not go any further. That, of course, is not how 1974 turned out. But he, too, thought it was time to stop with the investigations and focus on legislation, which had gone forward pretty well, even while the Watergate investigations were underway. Well, and I think what the president is trying to say here is he's not going to be in any mood to make deals with people and work on stuff and compromise if he feels like he's being attacked. Well, I don't think he has to worry too much about compromise in the next two years. I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying you're going to tank the economy if

you come after me. And speaking of being in the mood to make deals, one of the main policy points in the president's speech was immigration and the border wall. And now, of course, remember, this is coming off of 35 days of government shutdown over border security. And right now, there is a conference committee trying to reach some sort of compromise. Let's hear a bit of what President Trump had to say about the wall. In the past, most of the people in this room voted for a wall, but the proper wall never got built. I will get it built. I mean, we've heard all this before, but what we are still stuck with is the president's insistence that he win this one and the refusal of congressional leaders to let him win this one.

And it really was not much different than what the president said in his Oval Office speech in the midst of the government shutdown. He didn't persuade any Democrats to switch sides then. I don't know that he said anything tonight that's going to persuade anybody. And this argument that people on the other side have voted for fencing and barriers in the past, as if you voted for a fence in one section of the border, you automatically should vote for a fence in some other section of the border. It doesn't really hold water. What the Democrats would say is we built the fences where we thought fences ought to go and we didn't build them anywhere else and we're not going to build them anywhere else. I don't think in terms of his request that anything was new said tonight, but I did think his tone was really notable in the

speech when talking about immigration. And it was much more a throwback to Donald Trump on the campaign trail, the presidential candidate who used really sharp, stark language when talking about the immigrant community. And inside the room, that was one of those moments where it was really interesting to watch Democrats, many of which are Hispanic, many of which come from immigrant communities, many of which are now second generation Americans, and how hostile they view that language. And knowing how the people you have to cut the deal with are absorbing those words, I think that it speaks to the intent of the president that he's not really looking to cut a deal on this. He's looking to stand his ground. And I think as we approach this February 15th deadline, this speech to me further raised the question and fueled the argument that the

White House really is positioning to moving the president to declaring a national emergency if Congress doesn't give him what he wants to try and build the wall on his own. The president was in a way saying it is Americans versus immigrants. That was really the framing that he presented. That's not the framing that the people who, in theory, he would have to make a deal with would use. He also frames this debate and cast this immigrant community largely as criminals and as dangerous people. And I think that that is where his opponents in this debate think that he really does the debate a disservice in casting this image of this millions and millions of people in this country are criminals, they're killers, they're rapists, they're gang members. And that is not an accurate reflection of who they are. And when you only choose to highlight those stories,

it is not a message of how do we solve this problem? It's a message of I want to keep engaging in this fight. And again, this goes to what I think a lot of Republicans on the Hill believe. I think it goes to what this White House believes, that this is a bedrock issue for the president. And if he is going to compromise with Democrats in the next two years, immigration should not be the issue that he chooses to compromise on. It has been a consistent message for this president, and it's one that he thinks helped catapult him into the White House. It is certainly not helping him cut a deal on a border wall. One of the lines tonight that got a lot of attention,

and I thought it was an interesting line in which he talked about immigration. No issue better illustrates the divide between America's working class and America's political class than illegal immigration. I think he's right there. I mean, I do think he does speak to something that it is an issue that has galvanized a lot of America in a way that Washington leaders don't connect with. And Trump really did connect with that sentiment. And he's captured that sentiment of a lot of the country. It's accurate that in that he is fighting for the viewpoint of a lot of Americans. It's just not the viewpoint that's necessarily going to get a

bill to his desk at the end of the day. And what's interesting, too, is that the geography of that is it tends to be strongest in the areas that have the fewest immigrants. I mean, if you look at the border communities, that's not where the hue and cry for the wall is. It's from overwhelmingly white parts of the country that are, you know, hundreds of miles from the border. That's where this message really resonates. And the more immigrants live in a congressional district, the less support for a wall you'll find. I will just say to that note, Will Hurd is the Republican from Texas. He represents one of the largest stretches of the border. I had my eyes on him when the president was making his immigration remarks. He did not stand up and clap when the

president made his comments about immigrants. He sat there, arms folded, looking very uncomfortable as he sort of railed against immigrant communities and elites. He also talked about his decision to pull troops out of Syria and claimed again that ISIS is nearly defeated in Syria, that the caliphate is essentially gone. Interestingly, that was another moment like the one we just talked about a moment ago where not all the Republicans leaped to their feet and cheered. In fact, the most obvious applause line when he was talking about Syria did not even get any applause and he had to move on. So there is not universal support for that particular position with his party. It is a popular position, nonetheless, among the kinds of people within his party who are Trump voters and his most devoted crossover people who are not necessarily Republicans also generally tend to favor his more isolationist views towards some of these foreign policy commitments. There are two more moments that I want to get to. I think that these are the things that people might remember from this speech. There was this

moment where all of the Democratic women who were wearing their white suits had already stood up and were clapping joyously at a reference the president had made about more women being in the workforce than ever before. Don't sit yet. You're going to like this. And exactly one century after Congress passed the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote we also have more women serving in congress than at any time before i love this moment for a lot of reasons but one of it is that in the tone of the president it's a little self-congratulatory like now we have the most women ever also well and they could say thank you very much president trump because he is probably the reason that they want. He was sort of the galvanizing issue that prompted a lot of women to run for Congress in the 2018 midterms.

Almost all of the women that were elected in the 2018 midterms were strong opponents of the president's agenda. And now they're sitting in Congress and he's like congratulating them. But it was this it was sort of this moment of like comic irony where it was like, are you thanking them? Are you what are you doing here? We should also say that he did not make any effort to address Speaker Nancy Pelosi. One of the most prominent women sitting over his shoulder in that audience is he never in his speech, as past presidents have done, is congratulate the speaker on their victory in the majority or reference her in any direct way. Oh, in fact, he did not even allow her to introduce him, which is a traditional

role for the speaker. The speaker is responsible for inviting the president to come to the chamber. And then the speaker has the traditional role and even a little traditional introductory speech that is given to introduce the president as though anyone was uncertain as to who he was. And he did not pause to let her do that. He just sallied forth to the microphone. And it's not clear whether that was on purpose or if he was just like excited to start talking or what. He just started talking before any introduction. But certainly a lot of people were watching to see how is the president going to acknowledge the reality that now the House speaker standing over his shoulder during this speech is someone from the other party? And those of us who are

old enough to remember when George W. Bush turned to Nancy Pelosi and commented on what a historic moment it was to have the first female speaker. And as the father of two women, he was pleased by that. Donald Trump is also the father of two women. There was none of that at the top of the speech. I think maybe he was just sort of saving it. He knew there was this moment, but it took a long time to get to it. We were, what, 45 minutes into the speech when that salute to the new women in Congress came up. Yes, 45 minutes in, also known as halfway. Yeah, it was a very long speech for those of you who did not watch it. OK, so this other moment, President Trump was addressing a Holocaust survivor who was also a member at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, where that terrible anti-Semitic attack took place and a terrible shooting last year. And it turns out that it was Judas Samet. That's the guy. his 81st birthday. So members of Congress start singing happy birthday. They wouldn't do that for me, Judah.

He's probably right. They probably wouldn't do that for him. All right. We are going to take a quick break. And when we come back, the Democratic response and where all of this leaves us. How do we perceive our experience as humans? Who are we today? And who could we be tomorrow? I'm Guy Raz. On the TED Radio Hour, we go on a journey through the big ideas that animate our world. Each week, it's the TED Radio Hour from NPR. And we're back. And it is customary after the State of the Union address for the other party to deliver a response. This year, there were two responses, one in English, one in Spanish.

Let's start in English with Stacey Abrams. She lost the Georgia governor's race last fall, but narrowly lost it. Sue, what is the significance of her being chosen for this? Part of the thing about picking Abrams is that it's kind of a weird pick if you think about it, that she just lost her election. And as of right now, she has no real clear role inside the Democratic Party. She has suggested she wants to run for office again, but it's not clear what she wants that office to be. I can tell you that Chuck Schumer very much would like her to run for the Senate in 2020 against David Perdue, who's the incumbent Georgia senator. It's unclear if she's going to do that yet. I think asking her to give the response was in part part of that courting effort to get her to consider running for Congress. And I think choosing her speaks to

a demographic reality of the Democratic Party right now. They're really mindful of minority voters and specifically black female voters who have been some of the most loyal voters for the Democratic Party and voters that show up and vote. And there has been a conversation inside the Democratic Party that if you want to win in 2020, one of the groups of people that need to feel heard are Black women. And so I think Stacey Abrams makes a lot of sense in those regards. Let's go to what she said. Probably the toughest line in this speech was about the shutdown. The shutdown was a stunt engineered by the president of the United States, one that defied every tenet of fairness and abandoned not just our people, but our values.

She also talked about something that is an issue that's been very important to her for a very long time, and which was a defining part of her campaign for governor, and that is voting rights. The foundation of our moral leadership around the globe is free and fair elections, where voters pick their leaders, not where politicians pick their voters. Of course, Stacey Abrams lost in the governor's race in Georgia to Brian Kemp, who had been the secretary of state, and she accused him of taking steps to discourage the African-American turnout, to discourage turnout in parts of the state where she was going to do well.

And this is part of a theme that Democrats say the more people vote, the better we do, and that Republicans deliberately suppress the vote in order to hold on to power. The approach that Stacey Abrams took to immigration in the Democratic response was quite different from the approach that President Trump took in his address. This administration chooses to cage children and tear families apart. Compassionate treatment at the border is not the same as open borders. a policy which they have since ended. But she really does try to push home the point, as Democrats do, that their opposition to the president's proposed border wall does not mean they are for open borders or against border security writ large. Can we very quickly, because State of the Union responses have a history of going poorly, how was the stagecraft on this one? Middling strange. There was a group of women primarily.

I couldn't see any men visibly. They were not in close focus. They were in somewhat fuzzy focus. It was not entirely clear they could hear her. I thought at times that some of them might be nodding, but they could have been nodding without it being able to hear her. So it was not the worst. We've seen much worse. So staging of

some of these things, people not looking at the right camera and so forth. But in this case, Stacey Abrams was fine and straight ahead to the camera. But the people behind her were slightly distracting because you really didn't know if they knew what was going on. It's such a trap, this speech, because the thing that you want to do the most is basically be forgettable, right? Because the things that make people memorable are the disasters. It's the weird stagecraft. It's your shiny lips. It's your drinks of water.

And so in some regard, I think she did a good job because I don't think when I wake up tomorrow, I'm going to be able to tell you three interesting things about Stacey Abrams' speech. But I think that in some ways, that's a really good thing. Because if she was what we were talking about tonight, it would probably be because she screwed something up. I think it might also be the first time that people the next day are talking about the Spanish response, not because that it was in Spanish. That's been going on for several years now. Both parties have been doing it in both languages. But because of some of the things that Javier Becerra,

the attorney general of California, said about what they plan to do if there is a national emergency to build the wall. Becerra is also a former member of Congress now, as you said, an AG, and also one of the AGs that's looking to be the resistance to Donald Trump, that if there are legal challenges that the states are going to bring against this administration, specifically if he does indeed decide to declare a national emergency and go around Congress to build the wall. Becerra said in his speech tonight that he will be one of the AGs that challenges that measure in the courts and is very enthusiastically looking to that role. And I think it's really interesting, the Spanish language speech, as you've said, that they've been doing. But in the context of this immigration debate, I think the audience tonight to use a

tougher message there was really notable. Yeah, and it really was a tougher message. I'm just going to, because it's in Spanish, I'm going to read it in English here. And here he says, and the idea of declaring a non-existent state of emergency on the border in order to justify robbing funds that belong to the victims of fires, floods, hurricanes, and droughts to pay for the wall is not only immoral, it is illegal. We are ready to reject this foolish proposal in court the moment it touches the ground. And look, Becerra has a track record. He has sued the president already over things like the president's plan to end the DACA program. And he's done so successfully. So this is a legitimate legal threat. So let's end this podcast looking forward and kind of looking back. Did anything happen in any of these addresses that changes the calculation, that moves the needle on the impending government shutdown

if they can't come up with a deal on border security? It depends on what direction you wanted the needle to move. I think the needle did move tonight in that I think the Democrats that he has to cut a deal with walked out of the room more inclined to think this is a president we can't cut a deal with. And to that, my takeaway from this speech was it was one that did move closer to that confrontation over a national emergency. Although also that confrontation with the national emergency would allow them to fund the government and move on because the president could just say, I'm doing it my way. And then we don't have a shutdown fight. We could have a big bipartisan deal next week that has nothing to do with this speech, too. I mean, Congress could work its will and cut an agreement. I'm not sure that this speech would be what broke the logjam. Okay, that is a wrap for now. No doubt we will be back in your feed soon. In the meantime, you can keep up with our coverage at NPR.org, on the NPR One app, and on your local public radio station. Also, I really encourage you to check out our fact checks of both the president's address and the Democratic response.

Scott Horsley did a lot of stuff in there, so check it out. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Scott Horsley. I cover. So check it out. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Scott Horsley. I cover the White House too. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. And I'm Ron Elving, editor correspondent. And thanks for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.