The State of the Union report to Congress is part of the constitutional obligations of the President of the United States. It is in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. Though it is a long time coming, President Biden’s latest presentation demonstrates that the Speech no longer serves its intended purpose.
What the Founders called for was a serious report from the President to Congress — not necessarily a speech. In fact, early Presidents sent their report over to Congress in written form. It was not a widely reported event. It was meant more as an insider report meant largely for congressional consumption.
George Washington provided the report in written form – to be read to Congress by the clerks of the respective chambers. The first President to give his report in person – in the form of a speech – was Woodrow Wilson. That tended to change the report from a summary of the condition of the Republic, vis’ a vis major issues, to a lobbying speech for the President’s legislative agenda.
Over time – and with the introduction of radio and television – the State of the Union Speech became a major political and social event. It evolved from a rather dignified speech by the nation’s chief executive into the circus we see today. Yes, I said circus.
Biden took it to a new level – and I do not mean a higher one – with the most strident partisan speech in history. But that was only incremental. The State of the Union Speech had been succumbing to reality show buffoonery for years.
While past presidents were announced and walked solemnly and silently down the aisle to the podium, the new entrances rival professional wrestling events with back slaps, high fives and cheering. Members of Congress who once may have nodded politely as the President passed, now approach him like teenagers at a rock concert – visibly giddy. They seek autographs and take selfie phone camera photos.
In years past, the chamber remained largely silent, with only a few interruptions for applause. Never cheers, boos and outbursts. I can recall past vice presidents and speakers of the house sitting like statues behind the President. Today, we had Vice President Harris jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box or a high school cheerleader. Applause is no longer limited to a few notable statements but has become a numerical contest to be reported by the media. How many times a President is interrupted by applause is now a scoreboard statistic.
And then there are all those folks in the gallery to be props for specific issues. Like all slippery slopes, the recognition of a person in the gallery in the past was limited — maybe one or two people with heroic stories worthy of national recognition. Today, it is a half dozen folks – mostly with highly partisan personal stories.
Rather than an informative event for Congress – or even we the people — the State of the Union address has become the annual political Super Bowl — but with only one team on the field. Rather than provide the President with an opportunity to explain the state of the American Union, it has evolved into a personal and partisan platform for an incumbent president’s political agenda – a rally with all the over-the-top antics and theatrics. In election years, the Speech descends into the depths of political depravity.
So … you may think my preference is to return to the more sedate State of the Union speeches of yesteryears. Not so. Oh, I would prefer it over the current carnival, for sure. But … If I had the proverbial magic wand, I would choose a totally different approach. I would amend the Constitution to completely do away with the annual State of the Union dog-and-pony show and replace it with the British system of the “Prime Minister’s Questions” to be held at least four times each year.
If you are not familiar with the British system, the Prime Minister comes before the Parliament to make a brief statement of policy matters and then stands for questions from members of Parliament – all parties and factions. Tough questions. Issue-based questions.
And what I especially like is that the members can react to every answer. They hiss, boo and groan – even stomp their feet – when they disapprove of an answer. Conversely, those who like the question or the answer sound their approval with a course of “Hear! Hear!” Some individual voices can occasionally be heard yea-ing and nay-ing.
But, the responses are generally brief and are not intended to disrupt the proceeding – simply to register an opinion. When the body becomes more aggressive in its verbal responses, the Speaker pounds the gavel repeatedly demanding “Order! Order!” – which is restored within moments.
The Prime Minister’s Questions is lively even entertaining — but more importantly, a highly informative event.
What I like about the system is that it provides a public forum for the discussion of a wide range of issues important to the people of Great Britain. The Prime Minister is challenged to answer in specific terms very hard-hitting questions. And by having several sessions each year, the public is better informed on a more frequent basis. In watching those televised proceedings, the people of Britain learn far more about the state of their union than we do from what has become a political charade in America.
Imagine if the President of the United States were to stand in the well of the House and be made to answer specific questions from his political allies and adversaries in a single event repeated several times a year. There would be no long partisan speeches with no opportunity for questions. There would be no teleprompters. No staged theatrics. No human props in the gallery.
The questions would come from the representatives of the people – not the press or handpicked audiences. Rather than having a few legislators break the rules in Washington by shouting responses, the responses would be built into the event itself.
The weakness in the American system is that we do not have a way to force our leaders to face the public – or even face our elected representatives. That has enabled American presidents – especially the current one – to run and serve insulated from public scrutiny. Bob Costa, the harshly anti-Trump sportscaster, called for Biden to step down – describing the President as being “bubble wrapped.” To a lesser degree, that applies to all presidents. The British system ensures that their leader has to appear outside the bubble wrap on occasion.
I understand it is a pipedream, but wouldn’t it be lovely?
So, there ‘tis.