State of Disunion

A little history lesson for you kiddies out there:

Article II, Sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution requires that, "The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

And even though George Washington gave his State of the Union as a speech to both houses of Congress, there was no law that it must be an oral address. Thomas Jefferson, being a rather shy man and thinking the idea of a speech to the entire young government a bit too “kingly,” opted to deliver his message in writing. His successors found this such a great idea that it was 112 years until a president spoke the State of the Union Address again. President Wilson revived the concept of a speech, and until Calvin Coolidge in 1923, the speech was only shared with the public through newspapers.

Even though there was no law that the information must be shared with the public at large. And definitely there was no law that it must be, as it’s become since the advent of television and absolutely since the advent of media spin and rebuttals and focus groups, a national spectacle.

It used to be a medium by which a President would deliver vital information. James Monroe used it to outline the Monroe Doctrine. Lincoln used his in 1862 to announce that he wanted to abolish slavery. FDR spoke of the “four freedoms” in 1941.

But especially in the last ten years, the SOTU has become a joke. The audience is preloaded with “heroes” like Tom Brady and 9/11 emergency workers and others who will underscore the need for such-and-such or how great the president is at whatever national problem is at hand. The opposing party gives the president a token three of four claps while looking like they’d been sucking on lemons? Who doesn’t recall (among those of us who are old enough to remember) the 1997 Clinton State of the Union Address that most media chose to show split-screen with the low-speed chase of OJ Simpson’s white van? Or the booing from the left side of the aisle when W gave his last SOTU? Since when, no matter how low his approval rating, has it become acceptable for Congress to boo a sitting president during a speech?

Martin Van Buren would never have stood for that. Not to mention Abigail Van Buren.

Another SOTU tidbit that you might not know: In Bush’s addresses, the average number of the times he uses the pronoun “I” is 37. The average number of first person references in one of Clinton’s speeches is well over a hundred. Which said something about why Bush is the President he is and why Bill Clinton is the President he was and why it took Clinton such an agonizingly long time to get on that plane out of Washington when his second term was over.

I hardly bother to watch these “speeches” anymore. They’re simply laundry lists of things that would be great to have but mostly will never be. They’re a grand opportunity for scads of free media space so a president can test out his best lines, deflect from the real problems he’s been having and set the political pundits and administration representatives spinning like tops.

And now that so many of the speeches are previewed by media outlets in the days proceeding, (anyone who hasn’t been in a cave for the last week knows that W is going to talk about health care, education and the war in Iraq) why bother giving the damned thing at all? It would save us all a whole lot of time and give us what we really want, which is more time to sit in front of the TV and eat trans-fat laden snacks.

So a request to whomever is elected next: I, and probably a lot of other people, would just as soon you return to delivering the speech in writing. Just get your staff of spinmeisters going, use the time you’ve saved on actually doing something for the country, and post the speech on the web. And I’ll read it at my leisure. Or when none of my favorite shows are on.

Thanks.