Clinton avoided strong partisan rhetoric, especially rhetoric that emphasized so-called
class warfare; Morris consistently argued that such language does not appeal to middle-
class voters.
There is rarely one central idea in a State of the Union address, and it was
certainly not the case that Clinton was primarily advancing the Middle Class Bill of
Rights that evening. In fact, of the 98 paragraphs in the speech, only eight refer directly
to the proposal, or to middle class tax cuts more generally. As expected, the coding
scheme finds almost nothing in these eight paragraphs that suggest leading. Perhaps
partly because these were poll-tested statements and ideas, Clinton’s language was
remarkably similar to the other public speeches he was giving during this period: broad
descriptions of the four parts of the plan, comparison to the GI Bill, brief comments about
the desirability of tax cuts for the middle class, and a slightly modified re-statement of his
“test” for any proposal: “Will it create jobs and raise incomes; will it strengthen our
families and support our children; is it paid for; will it build the middle class and shrink
the underclass? If it does, I’ll support it” (January 25, 1995, 103). The kinds of appeals
Clinton made in these eight paragraphs very clearly indicate an expectation of support for
his position; there are no efforts to acknowledge concerns, cite opposition, or demonstrate
causal connections – the sorts of things coded for here.
Without such efforts to overcome skepticism, a favorable public reaction would
indirectly suggest that Clinton had advanced a popular idea in the Middle Class Bill of
Rights. Following the address, a Los Angeles Times poll asked respondents what they
liked the most among Clinton’s various proposals; a sizeable plurality (41%) identified
12
Note that Morris was still working secretly with Clinton – so when Clinton and Morris decided to drop a
line from the State of the Union Address that knocked the GOP for “tax cuts for the wealthy,” his more
liberal White House staff was flatly puzzled by the decision (see Stephanopoulos 1999, 336).
39
Convention