We should put an end to it. There’s nothing in it required by the Constitution. As noted, the current State of the Union format was invented by Woodrow Wilson, the closest thing this country ever had to a fascist dictator. Why would we want to continue it?
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Mark Steyn:
…as monarchical theatre it sucks. If you’re going to have an annual affront to republican virtue, you could at least have Barney Frank in knickerbockers and full-bottomed wig walking backwards shouting, “Hats off, strangers!”
Hey, I’d watch that.
Actually, Article II, Section 3, requires the President to “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” so some report is clearly required.
Washington and Adams both delivered their speeches in person. Jefferson, noted as the “silent member” of the Congress due to his dislike of and lack of ability at public speaking, started the tradition of sending written notes in lieu of speeches. In short, there’s nothing sacred about either a speech or a report, and modern Presidents have gone both ways.
Regarding facing questions, my understanding of the rules of order in Congress is that directly questioning any speaker is not allowed. In fact, rules of order in general state that only one person can be speaking at a meeting at any time.
Based on what an MP told me years ago, Britian’s “Question Period” where the PM gets grilled is a special exception to the rules of order for the Parliament. Even then, those questions are supposed to be submitted in advance and in writing. Except for Question Period, the MPs are supposed to shut up when somebody is speaking on the floor.
Never liked them, stopped watching them when I was 19. No Matter the president it sounds like an audio book about “power words.”
and that requirement was based on the idea (I think) that the Commander and Chief might have to deliver information to the congress, while he was acting actively as commander in chief.
But really who cares? It’s still a waste of time.
Let’s not be hasty — after all, it’s not every day that Obama gets to make a speech — oh, wait. I mean, it’s not every day that Obama gets to lie about the SCOTUS’s ruling to their faces on national teevee.
Chris is right, the SOTU is pretty much required. And I think debating the format is moderately silly. It’s just a plain fact we do not have a parliamentary system like the Brits, with the entertaining and infomative rough ‘n’ tumble of the Commons in session. We’ve always had a system in which the real debate goes on behind the scenes, and what gets done on the floor in the open is formal and stiff and often meaningless.
I’m not sure I find this bad. It’s to be borne in mind that the United States, in its polyglot multicultural nearly open border immigrant nature, has serious divisions. There really are people who hate Obama’s guts for being a right-wing nut. It isn’t necessarily a bad thing for there to be constraints of decorum in what’s broadcast on network TV. There are real costs associated with breaching traditions of civlized courtesy in your debate. Pretending to think well of your enemies does, actually, change how you deal with them — often for the better.
So I think a little bit of hypocrisy here — what Victorians might have called “good manners” — isn’t out of place.
Besides, keep in mind that Republicans ought to pay the salary of Obama’s speechwriters. He’s the rhetorical king, the master of the spoken word. He can dig himself into an unrecoverabl pit, piss off dyed blue in the wool Democrats, faster than any of his opponents. And that is just what he is doing.
As they say, never interfere when your enemy is committing suicide.
Chris is right, the SOTU is pretty much required.
No one said a report isn’t required. What isn’t required is the big show every January.
Glenn posted this link to Reagan’s 1982 SOTU speech. It’s worth a watch. Here’s what impressed me about it:
(1) Reagan had been in office just as long as Obama has, and had just about as big an economic problem to deal with. But there he is in January 1982, after one year in office, reeeling off one legislative accomplishment after another.
(2) Sitting behind him is, of course, the Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, lifelong Democrat from Masschusetts.
Obama pisses and moans because he has only a majority in the House and 60 Democratic Senators, not every one of whom has drunk his Kool-Aid. Reagan had a Democratic House run by Tip O’Neill. But Reagan got stuff done. What a clown 44 is, really.
Carl: Thanks for the reminder. Though Reagan was arguably the best President in my lifetime (which is pretty long), I was never a huge fan. I just watched his SOTUS, and it brought back memories of the long, cold, dark night of the Carter administration, and the relief that Reagan brought. By contrast with the current occupant of the White House, he’s Jeffersonian.
MfK, I was never a big fan of the Gipper either, and as a sophomoric college sophomore, not to mention the graduate of 12 years of educational-system
brainwashingsocialization, I despised him when he was in office.But he grows on me, year by year. It’s kind of how my father seems wiser to me every year I get older. Reagan seems that way, too.
Woodrow Wilson, the closest thing this country ever had to a fascist dictator.
Sweet god, really? I mean, REALLY?
You cheapen the debate. Leaving aside the anachronistic character of that assertion, in what way was he a fascist dictator?
The SOU Address goes rather well with the comic-opera imperial trappings of the office of President of the USA. The fleets of limousines to transport one man, the platoons of “Secret Service” agents who are about as secret as a brass band, the hordes of uniformed flunkies in military uniforms and being paid for from the military budget…
The White House is rather badly in need of a new staff position, protected from harm by statute – that of court jester. It won’t happen, of course.
in what way was he a fascist dictator?
He had a toothbrush moustache and liked to wear shiny black boots. But he only wore the boots in private, and the moustache was photoshopped out of all the Youtube videos of Wilson by his widow during the Second World War, when such things became unpopular.
“You cheapen the debate. Leaving aside the anachronistic character of that assertion, in what way was he a fascist dictator?”
You might want to ask your question first, before casting aspersions.
He took control of the railroads, pushed anti-trust actions and more federal control of business. Let segregationists segregate (there’s your “purity” test for the obligatory Hitler reference). Plus, he didn’t have a depresion for cover.
Apparently, knowing historical details Dave doesn’t, constitutes cheapening the debate.
War is peace, love is hate, Joanie is Chachi.
Don’t forget he got us into war so he could have a seat in the world government he do desperately craved.
do = so
Carl Pham – that’s only the second time ever you’ve agreed with me – are you feeling okay? 😉
Bill Maron – except none of what you listed as Wilson’s actions is actually, fascist. He took control of the railroads during WWI because they were collapsing, and anti-trust was started under Teddy Roosevelt.
I do seem to think Germany and Great Britain had a lot to do with our entry into WWI.
Wilson signed the Clayton ANTITRUST Act to strengthen the Sherman Act.
Leaving aside the anachronistic character of that assertion, in what way was he a fascist dictator?
Aside from worshipping power and war, being contemptuous of the individual and the separation of powers, despising the Declaration and Constitution, being a virulent white supremicist, taking over vast sectors of the economy, with plans for all of it, jailing thousands without trial for merely criticizing him even in their own homes, and being the model for Mussolini’s plans, in hardly any way at all.
Dave, just what do you imagine that Warren Harding was promising “normalcy” from?
My theory is that it’s you that’s changing, Chris. Exposure here to the dark poison of the thoughts of myself and certain evil others I shall not name is slowly twisting your mind. Watch out. Don’t try on any Rings of Power you might find, or win in riddle games.
I agree. I don’t have the time or inclination to search and post links but your ratio of informed/rational to unmitigated turnip-truck fodder has increased.
Late to the party, I know, but anyone who wants to read some background on why Wilson could be called a dictator should aquaint themselves with the following (my primary sources for this information are different, but Wikipeidia serves as an easy reference which, in this case, backs up my original source):
Why the 1918 Pandemic is known as the Spanish flu (even though it was initially diagnosed in the US) because of censorship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Origins_of_name
Anti-sedition act passed: “President Woodrow Wilson was concerned that dissent, in time of war, was a significant threat to morale. The passing of this act forbade Americans to use “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war.” (Full url not listed so it doesn’t get caught up in moderation. You know what to add)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
These are a start. There are plenty more.