So argues Lewis Gould in WaPo: Ban the Bombast!.
And certainly when it comes to the State of the Union address, there isn’t exactly any drama there, and it is also as much “show” as it is “speech.” However, I think that it does serve a useful purpose.
Also, I would take issue with Gould’s characterization of the speech:
More like an acceptance speech at a national convention than a candid review of the nation’s situation at the outset of a new year, the State of the Union has evolved into a semi-imperial speech from the throne.
Funny, I have always thought of them as a kid presenting his Christmas list to Santa. A speech from the throne suggests that the President always gets what he wants, which isn’t the case, even with his own party in power. We need go back no further than last year and the Social Security reform issue to prove that point.
Really, it is part PR, part self back-patting, part introduction of the president’s budget and very much about influencing, if not setting, the agenda.
The piece itself is worth reading, if anything, because of the overview of the history of the SOTU.
Of course, given the substantial power that a televised SOTU gives to a sitting President in terms of influencing the agenda, there is no way it is going to go away.
January 29th, 2024 at 7:41 pm
“Of course, given the substantial power that a televised SOTU gives to a sitting President in terms of influencing the agenda, there is no way it is going to go away.”
Hopefully there will be something important on TV Tuesday night, like college basketball.
January 30th, 2024 at 8:43 pm
Down with the State of the Union
All the pomp of a Speech from the Throne without any of the give-and-take of Question Period
…
January 31st, 2024 at 4:44 pm
[...] respectively. Meanwhile, Matthew Shugart would like to get rid of the thing. Of course, as I noted earlier, the speech, for all its flaws, has too much political usefulness to be done away with.
[...]