There’s no Constitutional Requirement that the President address Congress in an actual spoken speech.
“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.” (Article II, Section 3)
A simple letter is quite sufficient for this purpose and was the standard practice between 1801 and 1913.
Let’s face reality here: The spoken address has evolved into a pure dog and pony show, if it ever was anything else. Personally, I’ve found every address within my living memory to be an absolute insult to my intelligence. Our Beloved Leader says some completely inane, poll tested catch phrases that don’t actually mean anything in between annoyingly long clapping sessions. It accomplishes nothing.
I don’t intend for this post to be a partisan jab; I think the address is just as stupid regardless of what party holds the Oval Office. I think our Presidents should just go back to sending letters to Congress.
I agree it’s a waste of time. But we’re struck with it. Imagine the furor that would be raised by party X when the party Y president decides to can the tradition. He’s afraid to address the Congress and the American people!!!
I take back what I said about “waste of time”. The SotU speech needs to be seen for what it is-- political theater. And as such, it’s a very valuable tool for a president. He’s not going to give that up.
From my own perspective, it’s a waste of time. Which is why I don’t usually watch those speeches.
I have never watched an American state of the union speech before this one (read the recap, just never seen the entire thing) and while the speech itself didn’t seem all that different from any other Bush speech, the reception was ummm, unsettling.
Is the standing ovation every couple of sentences usual? I thought American govt was about ‘the people representing the people’. Why the hell was his speech received like he was a despot who demanded admiration and undying respect for every sentence?
Applauding a speech is one thing, standing ovations every couple of minutes is another. The ‘oh look! MORE standing and clapping’ factor drowned out almost everything he was saying.
The New Zealand Prime Minister would have a frigging heart attack if a speech got that kind of response. Of course the New Zealand prime minister gives an interview on tv at least once a week (the press call her Helen not Ms Prime Minister) so perhaps we don’t feel the awe that crowd did.
Ah, but did you see who was standing and applauding? Some statements were approved by all (mom, apple pie, fuzzy puppies). Others were only applauded by the Republican side.
And yes, this is typical these days, for television. No representative wants to be seen by constituents as having NOT applauded for fuzzy puppies.
No, it’s not like that. It really is that certain pols want to be seen on TV applauding certain statements. It’s also can be an in-your-face slam at the opposite party. Kind of a “we’re applauding for this because we know you don’t like it” sort of thing. You’ll notice that the Republicans all site on one side and the Democrats on the other. Like I said earlier, it’s political theater.
Pauses for applause are doubtless built into the speech notes. Did you notice that most of the applause came from the speaker’s left or the Republican side? And did you also notice that when GW mentioned that his Social Security “fix” was defeated the other side, or Democratic, stood and cheered?
Never having watched it before it was hard to see who was on what side (though I did see a close up of Hilary standing), the biggest applause I heard was when GW announced that oneday the US would be free from reliance on Middle Eastern oil, who made that noise? It seemed like it was everyone.
As you looked at the audience from the view of the lectern, the Republicans were to the left and the Democrats to the right. And yes, being free from reliance on Middle Eastern oil was a “fuzzy puppy” item.
The State of the Union Address does serve a purpose. It allows the President to put ideas before Congress and the public in a manner that cannot be ignored. So it can force a public debate on issues.
)