President Barack Obama delivered an impassioned, defiant and intensely partisan State of the Union address Tuesday night that brought into high relief the fundamental differences that divide left from right in America.

As Obama sees it, events have vindicated his policies, even if voters in the last election didn’t see fit to reward Democrats for their success. The economy has recovered, unemployment is down, the budget deficit is down, the stock market is up, and more people have health insurance.

Consistent with his vision for the country, Obama called for a bigger government to intervene more aggressively into the market economy in the name of fairness. He wants to forbid employers from hiring workers at low wages and to require employers to offer paid sick leave and maternity leave; he wants the government to subsidize child care and to cover the full cost of a community college education for everyone. To pay for these things, he wants to raise taxes: on capital gains (again), on banks, on corporations doing business overseas, and on inheritances.

Republicans and conservatives see the same good news Obama touted but view it in a very different light. The current economic recovery has been sluggish by historical standards, an increased fraction of working age people are no longer working or looking for work, wages remain stagnant, the national debt has nearly doubled, economic freedom has declined, and economic inequality has increased — all on President Obama’s watch. Republicans argue that Obama’s policies have slowed and weakened the economic recovery and therefore call for lower taxes, less spending and less government.

Though the Republicans scored historic gains in the 2014 elections, it was President Obama, not Mitt Romney, addressing the Congress on Tuesday, and Obama made clear that he plans to fight for his agenda, issuing a record seven veto threats to underline the point.

Curiously, however, the president concluded this partisan call to arms by returning to the ideal of post-partisanship that was such a large part of Senator Obama’s first campaign for the White House. Against those who have called that vision misguided and naive in light of the sharp disagreements that have roiled our politics during his presidency, Obama insisted that “we are one people” and called for a “better politics” based on shared agreement on common values.

“A better politics,” he said, “isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine.” It is one in which “we have arguments” but “make debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.”

(Does that mean Obama thinks the first half of his speech, taking a sharply partisan stand on the role and size of government, was an instance of bad politics and unworthy of this country?)

Obama then alluded to four of the most controversial issues now dividing Americans — abortion, immigration, voting and policing — and apparently sought to practice this post-partisan politics by describing what he saw as points of common agreement.

But his supposed points of common agreement were just recycled Democratic talking-points:

On abortion, he said: “We still may not agree on a woman’s right to choose, but surely we can agree … that every woman should have access to the health care she needs.”

This is hardly a fair statement of the common ground between pro-life and pro-choice Americans. For a start, Obama could begin by using the word “abortion” rather than the euphemism, “right to choose.” And the whole disagreement about abortion is whether it counts as maternal health care or homicide.

On voting, Obama said: “We may go at it in campaign season, but surely we can agree that the right to vote is … being denied to too many” and “we can come together … to make voting easier for every single American.”

No again. We on the right worry that more are voting fraudulently than are being prevented from voting by having to show ID at the polls. And does anyone literally believe that “every single American” should vote? Children? People with serious mental impairments? Career criminals?

Concluding his slanted summary of what he thinks all Americans agree on, Obama congratulated himself: “That’s a better politics. That’s how we start rebuilding trust,” he concluded.

No, it’s not. Trying to tell people what they believe and getting it wrong is actually a great way to erode trust and embitter our politics. How can you trust a leader who is so sure he knows what you think but then proves that he’s never understood a word you’ve said?

Joseph R. Reisert is associate professor of American constitutional law and chairman of the department of government at Colby College in Waterville.