Anyone watching last Tuesday's State of the Union address could not but be struck by the idiocy of the event. After several minutes of applause, President Bush stood before the assembled leadership of the U. S. government and delivered an anti-climactic address full of patriotic bluster that was carefully crafted to please everyone. At appointed intervals, Republican legislators rose in raucous applause while their Democratic colleagues sat in stony silence. A smiling Laura Bush looked on from the gallery, her box carefully filled with a racially diverse group of White House guests.
Conceived by the founders as an important exercise of democratic government, the State of the Union address today is nothing but an opportunity for political posturing and collective back-patting. If America is to fulfill the intention of its founders and spare itself the annual charade that the address has become, we should replace the televised speech with a written State of the Union report.
The Constitution requires that the President "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." No special date or format is established, nor is there any mention of a speech. The Constitution demands only the periodic communication of information and does not anticipate the grand spectacle that the State of the Union is today.
Indeed, the televised-speech format is mainly to blame for problems of the State of the Union address. In the age of mass media, an internationally televised assembly of the U.S. government is a fine opportunity for the President to score political points. Whether partisan rhetoric, self-congratulation or actual information, the President's every word is broadcast live around the world. Afterward, his speech becomes the subject of intensive scrutiny and ongoing media analysis.
The result of this publicity is an event marked more by political play-acting than any meaningful discussion of government business. With so many eyes upon him, the President makes impossible promises to the American people and impossible demands of Congress. Last Tuesday, Bush urged Congress to be fiscally responsible, even as he proposed a massive tax cut and billions of dollars in new spending. Such contradictions come naturally to the State of the Union address, whose viewers are a diverse group with diverse interests. Bush promised something to everyone and, in the spirit of the day, ignored the difficult question of how to pay for those promises.
Legislators, too, have a role in the festivities. Throughout the address, senators and congressmen must register their party's response through their silence or applause. At the conclusion of the address, political pundits undertake an extensive analysis of each side's moments of silence and applause.
This ritual -- another product of the event's high profile -- sees Congress reduced to a mindless mob, collectively cheering or frowning at the behest of its leaders.
Consisting, as it does, of partisan rhetoric, political posturing and vague assertions of America's greatness, the State of the Union address is hardly the event that the Constitution envisions. In order to discourage political grandstanding and make the State of the Union address a more meaningful event, we should change the format of the address.
The televised speech should be replaced by an annual written report to Congress. Such a report would include the President's assessment of the State of the Union and any legislative proposals that might be "necessary and expedient" for the coming year. After its release to Congress, the report would be made available to the media and the American people generally.
A written report would garner less publicity than the televised address and thus reduce the President's temptation to make unrealistic promises and demands. In a State of the Union address viewed by millions, the President can score points through outrageous promises, even if there is little chance of their ever being fulfilled. A written State of the Union read primarily by government officials might be more realistic. Scrapping the televised address would also save Congress the annual indignity of the applause ritual. Freed from the watchful eyes of the masses, legislators could make a more deliberate, intelligent response to the President's report, instead of rising and falling in mindless collective applause.
The State of the Union address is an event of admirable (and, indeed, Constitutional) aims that has been rendered useless by intense media coverage and political grandstanding. If the State of the Union is to become a realistic assessment of America's problems and their possible solutions, we must dispense with the televised address. A written State of the Union report would fulfill the Constitution's vision without the political pageantry that has so distorted the traditional address.
(Alec Solotorovsky is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at asolotorovsky@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
KURTZWEIL: What we lose in the name of efficiency
By Paul Kurtzweil | 16 hours agoPenicillin was discovered in a moldy petri dish — this government would have it thrown out because it was wasting space on the counter.
RASHID: U.Va. must empower faculty and students through transparency
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | YesterdayBy attempting to contain, or even eliminate uncomfortable narratives, the administration incrementally consolidates power and frays communal trust.
YOUNIS: Muslim students deserve a better Ramadan on Grounds
By Ayat Younis | 2 days agoRamadan at the University should not be a time in which students must choose between academic success and religious observance.
