According to Wikipedia, Thomas Jefferson chose not to publicly give his State of the Union address because he felt that it was too monarchial. After watching last Thursday's address, I am starting to agree with him.
The State of the Union is now nothing more than a way for the president to appear on prime time television and propagandize his agenda. The “state” of the Union is always good according to these speeches, but there seems to need improvement in certain “necessary areas” that the president deems worthy. For example during the 2006 speech President Bush, who I am not singling out as Clinton, Bush Sr., and other presidents used the speech as a promotional event too, urged Congress to adopt his controversial terrorist surveillance program as it would help the state of the union. We’ve all heard and seen Mr. Bush lobby for this in past press conferences, but do we really need to hear it again? In fact, almost all the statements and advice that the President gave that night were old, bland, and reiterated points made during the last couple of months. There really wasn’t anything new. In the end all he and the presidents before him just give the American public a 1 hour political commercial.
It is nice to see the president talk to Congress, because it is a rare event, but even that has lost its credibility too. The speech can go on forever thanks to the constant barrage of applauses and commentary from Congress. During last night’s 51-minute speech, there were 65 applauses meaning that there was a delay in the speech for every one and a half minutes. Adding more to this nuisance was the fact that most of the applauses were divided right down the center aisle between Democrats and Republicans. I think Americans, particularly those in younger generations, are fed up with their leaders acting like stubborn 5-year olds, cheering and jeering whenever they feel like it. But alas, the politicians don’t listen and they use this speech and the T.V. time to let out their views in the most immature way possible.
The main thing that does bother me about the speech is the fact that the basic television networks continue to air it live and uninterrupted. True, the speech has been a televised tradition since 1947, but again times change. The networks should seriously consider not airing the speech because along with the above mentioned faults of the speech itself there are now cable networks, such as C-Span and CNN, and the Internet that offer the speech to those who want to watch it. Furthermore, this year's address had some irony to it because the networks broke from their regular programming to air the “promotional speech” yet not one did the same for the inauguration of the new Supreme Court Judge; an event that is more historical and carries more weight. No wonder viewership of the speech is expected to be low. If network television news is ever going to regain its popularity, it must not change its style of presentation; it must change its choice of presentation.
Tracy Wong @ Tue, 02/07/2006 - 3:32pm
I think the State of the Union address is necessary. Although Bush's speech was old news, the address forces the President to talk to the American public. Otherwise, what happens when you have a secretive president who refuses press conferences? And although the speech may be long, the public is receiving an unfiltered speech, which it normally doesn't because each piece of news they read/hear/view is usually filtered through a writer. In this way, the public has the whole context and can decide for itself what to believe or not.
As for politicians acting like 5-year-olds, I think that's generally the case when there's gleeful mudslinging between Republicans and Democrats. But I'm not sure the public is exempt from doing that either.