From The Era Of Friends…

Depending on what measure you're using, the Clinton presidency was both a long time ago and practically just yesterday. The Big Dog's approach to various issues in the 1996 State of the Union serves to illustrate how things have changed, and how they haven't.

As the last pre-9/11 president, Clinton presided over a period of nearly unprecedented peace and prosperity for America. There was no Cold War to scare the beejezus out of everyone. 

The economy was humming along, thanks to the Internet and a growing housing market. There was an unprecedented sale of weird novelty items, from Tickle Me Elmos to Furbys to Tamagotchis. Sure the national debt was a serious problem in 1992, but the level of the '90s deficit pales in comparison to today's debt.

People wanted to talk about shrinking big government in part because they didn't need big government. Fast forward to 2009, when the world's economy collapsed (it was called the Great Recession, and it was no kinds of fun), and even conservative Republicans were largely in favor of using government spending to dust off the economy.

…Through The Era Of Girls…

In the decades following the 1996 State of the Union, American politics have turned into a giant ideological pendulum. The Bush administration, from 2001-2009, went down the path of shrinking government, with broad tax cuts, deregulation of the financial sector, and even a (failed) attempt to privatize Social Security (by the way, "privatize" means taking something out of the government's hands and giving it to the business sector of the economy).

The Obama administration, from 2009-2017, swung things in the opposite direction, with reform of the healthcare system (dubbed "Obamacare"—sound familiar?), revocation of the Bush-era tax cuts, and fast moving progress on social issues like gay marriage.

So have we settled on an answer to the question: big government versus small government? Not even remotely.

In 1996, Bill Clinton's declaration "the era of big government is over" was pretty controversial, with journalists on both sides of the issue variously praising and taking shots at the president. Some even called him out for being facetious, arguing that his welfare reforms were not going to be that conservative (even though they ended up putting significant limits on how long people could receive welfare), and suggesting that the promise to shrink government was just an empty slogan he used to win the 1996 election.

…Not Much Has Changed, Except For The Size Of Sitcom NYC Apartments

In that way, the interpretation of the 1996 State of the Union hasn't changed much from then to now. People still debate its significance, just as they debate the overall nature of the Clinton presidency. Recent history always makes for heated argument. Since the issues have remained largely the same, your opinion on the speech has a lot to do with whom you're voting for in the next election…unlike your opinion on, say, the Gettysburg Address.

The 1996 State of the Union pops up on various rankings of the most memorable State of the Union Addresses (news websites tend to post things like this on slow days). But in many ways, the big takeaway rings hollow. The national debt is currently so large that the notion of reaching a budget surplus is pretty far-fetched, at least for the time being.

As the second Democrat since FDR to win two terms, Barack Obama has dealt with many of the same challenges as Clinton: namely, passing a universal healthcare law, facing government shutdowns, and enduring the unadulterated hatred of his conservative political opponents.

Did the era of big government really end? Maybe for a wink. But it would be hard to argue that the government of now is smaller than the government of 1996.

Sorry for the anti-climax, but that's the way things go.