COMMENTARY | With the economy fragile, the housing market as soft as ever and unemployment stubbornly high, is President Barack Obama less focused on climate change as a political issue than he seemed to be during the 2008 campaign, even while the nation is battered by extreme weather this winter?
In the president's State of the Union address last week, he never directly said the words "climate change" or "global warming." Obama did speak at some length about using technology to develop alternative energy sources, and he talked about the economic benefit of things such as high-speed rail, but he did not explicitly discuss the threat of climate change; and certainly did not venture anywhere near the debate concerning whether or not climate change, if it exists, is manmade or not.
This is not new for Obama. In his previous two State of the Union addresses, he did not specifically mention 'climate change' either. During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama openly discussed the threat that climate change presented, and yet seems to refuse to discuss it now.
Instead, Obama seems to be repositioning the climate change challenge as an economic one; which, of course, it is in many ways. Throughout his presidency, and particularly since he has moved to the middle of the political spectrum in the weeks since the Republican electoral sweep, it seems that President Obama views the climate change conversation as one he cannot win.
While voters can directly feel and understand what a falling housing market means, and how a high rate of unemployment directly impacts them, the concept of climate change is very difficult for most anybody to truly grasp and understand. When the economy is weak and things uncertain, presidents who are planning to run for a second term are, of course, vulnerable.
Obama's predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each discussed climate change, and, unlike Obama, both mentioned it specifically in their State of the Union addresses. Both Clinton and Bush, however, were dealing from a different position than is the current president.
Clinton, throughout most of his presidency had an extremely strong stock market and overall economic environment, both of which provided a tailwind that allowed him to discuss things that might require sacrifice to address. Similarly, Bush presided over several years of economic strength, and, as a conservative, it likely made more political sense for him to at least mention it during his State of the Union addresses.
By contrast, Obama faces a nation of voters hurting from a major recession and uncertain economic future; it is a country likely less willing to listen to concerns about climate when it is worried about paying the mortgage and holding onto jobs. Particularly when Obama's political Achilles heel is often thought to be a certain aloofness and intellectualism that many common voters cannot relate to.
The irony is that Obama's reticence to directly address global warming comes at a time when severe and damaging weather seems to be on the increase. This week, a major "super storm", which some are already calling it the 'storm of the century', is descending upon the mid-section of the country. While nobody can specifically point to any given weather event or storm as evidence of manmade global warming, the extremes that many climate change experts say is a symptom of the situation seem to be increasing.
For now, however, the topic of climate change seems to have settled in next to that of taxes as a third rail of sorts in American politics...particularly for a Democrat during a bad economy.
Ron Hart is a political observer living in New York City. Having volunteered on several political campaigns, for both Democrat and Republican candidates, he brings a moderate's perspective. He is following the 2012 presidential campaign in its nascent stages.
