The U.S. Constitution mandates only that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” This doesn’t mean an annual cloistering of our nation’s leaders within the walls of the Capitol. And yet, we do it every year.
The State of the Union: It’s a theater show falsely presented as a Constitutional requirement–complete with a captive audience filled with both friends and foes, pomp and circumstance disguised as tradition, and an administration’s accomplishments listed off in search of vindication. I hate it all. I find it nauseating and yet, I understand the appeal for politicians, namely presidents. The boosts to their ego, the bump in poll numbers, the pats on the back. The profits are negligible, but it’s a seductive and alluring power that can prove overwhelming.
Having just sat through Donald Trump’s second official State of the Union (SOTU) address, I have only convinced myself more that we can do without the fluff we have inflicted upon ourselves annually. There’s the façade of bipartisanship that is infuriatingly sickening, but is made worse coming from a President who openly disparaged Democratic leadership only hours before his performance began. He had every opportunity to, at least in part, recalibrate his tumultuous presidency, lay out a clear path forward for his administration, and expand his base to strengthen the fragile favorability ratings he currently enjoys.
By all accounts, the president proved a disappointment in accomplishing these goals. After a bruising and partisan battle during the record length government shutdown, Trump needed a significant bump in poll numbers, something he failed to accomplish with his speech. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel even called this particular speech “political malpractice” in an Op-ed published by The Atlantic.
I’m picking on Trump because he was the one to give the address this year and because he has vindicated his critics time and time again. That being said, he is hardly the only culprit. The official rebuttal from the opposing party feels the same. It is a job often called the “least glamorous in Washington.” Opposition parties find it impossible to match the grandeur of the SOTU. The Democratic rebuttal offered fewer theatrics, but it was no less predictable. On occasion, rebuttals provide meme-worthy gaffes such as Marco Rubio’s dry mouth one. Even Joe Kennedy, whose actual 2018 rebuttal was widely praised, got overshadowed by chapped lips. A flawless rebuttal is so rare that FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver joked that, should someone deliver a good response, “[the politician] should not only run for president but should probably just become president automatically.” If the most that a party can hope for is that its sacrificial lamb not completely bomb, I think that warrants us taking a look at how our leaders address the nation.
Until we realize this, I suggest an alternative to the State of the Union address. Ideally, the address would be written and handed into Congress with no pageantry. But, that is both unrealistic and unreasonable. Let’s face it: the SOTU is a gift to the president and it should go. I would have the president deliver an address from the Oval Office with no live audience and the opposition’s rebuttal following right after with the same conditions. A straightforward address gives less room for error and removes a major design flaw in the structure of the SOTU: the audience. Without the audience, there is no room to hide and, in theory, the amount of pandering will go down.
In such polarized times, we have to adapt. Politically expedient events like SOTU feed disillusionment and are counterproductive to the American experiment. By listening to the SOTU and the response every year, we get stuck in an echo chamber filled with thoughtless excuses to hate the other side. We’ve become lazy because it’s easy. Held captive every year by the president, we fall back in love every year. It’s a case of political Stockholm syndrome and we have it bad. The sooner we realize this the better.
Worrying about the state of our country cannot be misconstrued as a partisan issue. It’s OK to care. We’re so quick to see Red or Blue that we ignore the shades of purple that drag us back together. We’ve forgotten that we are a country whose imperfections make us better. As long as we learn from our mistakes, we can hold our heads high. Improving requires that we examine our flaws. In doing so, we push ourselves to new heights.
I might hate the SOTU, but the state of our Union is strong. When we break through the partisan gridlock corrupting the halls of the Capitol building and our own minds, we can be exceptional. Leaving behind a legacy of redemption should be our new goal. At times, coming together may seem fruitless, but that is why we must try. In order to create a culture that will outlive us all, cooperation on both sides is essential. If we don’t figure this out, we risk regressing, but I think we are all up to the task. We’re long overdue for a fresh start. Let’s tear it all down. •
