President Obama’s State of the Union Address last week indicated that he was getting the message the American people were sending him through the senate seat election in Massachusetts and the various polls done by the major media networks recently. One year into his administration, the president’s tone of speech was much less exuberant, and more humbled by the recent turn of events.

After Democrat lost its senate seat election in Massachusetts, Obama realizes that he has fallen to the cruel reality from a illusion of voters’ adoration one year ago. On his State of Union Address last month, Obama’s tone of speech was much less exuberant and was frustrated due to intractable problems, especially the two wars and huge deficit.

Related readings:  Obama apologizes to 'Sin City'  Obama says healthcare may be 2010 election issue  Obama campaigns for his economic agenda  Obama's 2010 budget deficit to hit record $1.56T

In a way, President Obama used this opportunity of State of the Union Address to reconnect with the American people who sent him to the White House amid the national crisis of two wars and one of the most serious economic recessions since the great depression.

He defended the measures his administration took to bail out the banks and other financial institutions. To the displeasure of his Republican opponents in the Congress, he made it clear that his administration inherited the economic mess and the two wars from the previous Republic administration.

The most important point of the State of the Union address is President Obama’s promise that the American fighting forces will be out of Iraq this August, and American fighting forces will begin to withdraw next August from Afghanistan. I hope that President Obama can keep his promise this time. Obama got elected on the platform of change. American people, particularly the independent voters, were wary of the two wars, which cost many American lives and a great amount of money amid the economic crisis when so many Americans are out of jobs. Even though Obama was not responsible for starting these wars, his decision to escalate American war efforts in Afghanistan angered the American people because he betrayed his campaign promises.

It is common practice for elected officials to turn their backs on their campaign promises. The campaign promises are made to get elected. On the one hand candidate made these promises on basis of his candidacy. On the other hand, once the candidate is in office, the reality has changed. It is a challenge for any democratic government to reconcile these “two hands” of the politics.

If it was a normal time, voters would not be too upset. But this is during a serious economic crisis. People are losing their jobs, their homes, and their medical cares. In normal times, most American people do not pay much attention to their nation’s foreign affairs. They let their leaders get away with so many wars in the past as long as they are doing fine economically.

Many people in the U.S. like to say that war is good for business. Sometimes, it is true, particularly when the government had the money to spend. Today, the situation is very different. Currently American government is over $12 trillions in debt, which has been increasing an average of $3.88 billion per day since September 28, 2007. The average share of debt for each American citizen is over $40,000 now. The deficit of 2009, that ended on September 30, 2009, was $1.42 trillion, more than triple the record just set by the previous year.

With such a large debt, American people want their government to use the money for American people, not in wars far away from home. As I mentioned in another opinion piece, the President can afford to lose in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he can not afford to lose the America people at home. He has to change his current war policies.

President Obama also promised to cut the deficit. He said that he would freeze the federal budgets for the next three years in areas other than national defense, homeland security, Social Security and Medicaid. The projected saving would be $250 billions over the next ten years. Compared with the huge national debt and national deficit, this saving would be miniscule, less than three percent of the projected nine trillion additional deficits for the next ten years.

In order to make a real difference the government needs to cut back its defense spending. The U.S. spends more money on its military budget than the next ten biggest military budgets in the world combined. President Obama pledged that U.S. does not want to be No. Two in the world. That is great.If U.S. wants to maintain its No. One position in the world, it can spend twice or three times more than the second military spender in the world.

There is absolutely no need for American people to bear the current burden of such a big military spending. If the U.S. continues to spend more money on its military budget than the next ten biggest military spenders in the world combined, it would be difficult for the U.S. to avoid the fate of losing its position as No. One. The money spent on military is necessary for the national defense, but it is also the money taken away from other vital areas of national well being. Money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been used to improve the lives of many people in the U.S.

President Obama also promised more tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses in order to promote consumer spending and generate more jobs. He is also going to invest on 13 high speed train lines in order to create more jobs. There is no doubt Americans need more jobs. Unemployment is the biggest waste of any society. However, whether Obama will be able to get money to spend on the projects he listed is still questionable. American politics is fundamentally election politics. The U.S. Supreme Count has just ruled to remove the restrictions on corporations’ and other organizations’ campaign spending. With all the restrictions in place, money played a significant role in the outcome of elections. Without the restrictions, money from big corporations and powerful organizations will have more important, if not decisive, impact on the outcome of the elections. Whether President Obama will be able to do what he promised to do in the State of Unions address will largely depend on how the mid term election in November this year will turn out.

Dongping Han is Professor of History and Political Science at Warren Wilson College, NC. The opinions expressed are his own.