Seems like most times the president addresses the nation, there is a response from the opposition. I’ve never been a fan of this for several reasons.
The president is the president; he was elected by the populace, and deserves our attention by virtue of that alone. I don’t like the equivalency implied by following him with some random pol (and giving them the last word). The implication that whatever the president just said was purely political. It breeds lack of respect for the office.
It locks us into two party system. The Greens, Libertarians, etc. get no airtime, because they are so small … but they are so small in part because the pols and the media work together to create the impression that there are two possible takes on every issue (always two – never more or less). The pols that speak in the response are chosen specifically for their willingness to take the party line and serve the hierarchy; e.g. they’re not going to let Kucinich or Ron Paul go out there.
Smaller parties give State of the Union responses, you just never hear them because no one cares. If you do care they’re available at the parties websites and on youtube, go google
It does seem to create a false dilemma. But what would you have them do? Cover every single political partys response? If 6 people and a lamb form a political party (with the position of “give sheep the vote”), should the media cover their response to POTUS?
I sort of agree, halfway between you and John Mace’s points.
One of the reasons I like having some sort of response, from some other side, is that the President (as well as Congress) can essentially use our tax dollars for campaigning, under the guise of governance or communication.
He or she can hop into Air Force One, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money to fly somewhere to promote a pet project and/or sign a bill, and then give a speech that is usually nothing more than thinly-guised hype for his or her side in a political argument.
Not bashing Obama specifically for this. Everybody does it nowadays.
It’s a speech from a politician. Before a whole bunch of other politicians. In middle of a political institution. About politics. Why on earth would you think this would be anything but purely political regardless of if there’s a response or not?
Personally, I tend to like it. Giving his opponents a chance to respond sends a message. When Putin speaks, you don’t see his opposition’s opinion being broadcast by the media. Chavez has actively shut down media that publishes oppositions words. Kim Jung-Il doesn’t even allow an opposition to exist. OTOH, the US not only allows opposition to speak, we broadcast their words nationwide right after our leader speaks. That is a clear statement about the differences a representative democracy and an authoritarian regime. No matter how powerful or popular the President is, he can not shut down his opposition.
Not that I’m saying this is vital to democracy or actually worth much. Most responses are meaningless and usually come off as childish. When your speech is billed as basically little more than ‘He’s wrong…’ no matter what was said, it’s hard to come off as not childish. But as a symbolic gesture, I think it’s quite powerful.
Yeah, I think it’s a good thing. I would just prefer that news stations be required to give all parties (beyond a certain threshold) a voice. The two major parties will always get airtime when they want it.
As for speeches, there’s just no way to prevent incumbent politicians from using that time to take credit (justifiably or not) for their work. No way to disentangle informative statements from campaigning.
I also fail to see why “respect for the office” should have anything to do with it. It is not disrespectful to the office to point out something if you see it as wrong or nonsensical. I hoped we were past the “the president (or the office) can not be criticized” stage.
What I resent about these rebuttal responses is that they always attack, whether right or wrong. It seems like the one side could announce the cure for cancer and the other side would criticize because enough was not done for heart disease. These politicians have become one-trick-ponies and I hate all of them.
I am told that the GOP are actually opposed to reinstating the law that says broadcasters have to carry their responses to Democrat officeholders. So if I were a broadcaster, I would carry a Green Party response, but not a GOP one. If those lying sacks of shit want me to broadcast their drivel, let them win the actual executive office without any free airtime from me.
I say this because I used to vote for those lying sacks of shit, & when they got into power, they completely threw out the window the causes that they used to win my support, like fiscal responsibility. The GOP used to call themselves the party of grown-ups. The only grown-ups they resemble are lying liars who lie like dogs while telling their children to tell the truth.
We’ve seen what these people do; stop humoring them. Treat them like the crank party they have become.
Many years ago ,before Reagan killed it, we had equal time provisions on radio and TV. When a politician said something in the media, his opposition got free time to counter it. It was not just the 2 parties either. It was also not right afterwards ,but soon.
It was interesting because 3rd parties often had very interesting takes. You might think, “that was interesting, i never thought someone would have a good objection”.It was suppose to help educate the public. We don’t want that any more.