In a political game chock-full of empty rhetoric and waste-of-time spectacles, the annual State of the Union address that President Bush will give to the nation in front of a joint session of Congress tonight is the most vapid, inconsequential, meaningless and self-reverent of them all.
(Hold for the first of 470 standing ovations.)
Most citizens of this country have intuitively realized what a stupid display the State of the Union has become – that’s why nobody watches it anymore.
Raise your hand if you are going to be watching the address tonight. I see three raised hands, and all three of you are political science students hoping to impress at the next Bruin Democrats/Republicans meeting.
The rest of you are all going to be upset with George Bush for pre-empting your favorite shows for two hours. (“Even Cartoon Network is showing it?!”) It baffles my mind that the networks even air the State of the Union address. It must get lower ratings than reruns of “Becker.”
This should not be the case. The State of the Union is as old as the country itself. It is set out in Article II, Section III of the Constitution: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient ...”
The State of the Union should be the pinnacle of political discourse every year – the president going on national television to outline a strong, clear and honest vision for the populace.
Instead, like every other display of political discourse in this country, it has turned into a self-congratulatory charade where members of the president’s party leap to their feet in dutiful applause every 6.3 seconds. And members of the opposition party, like the kid who always gets picked last at recess, sit sullenly in the chamber for two hours waiting for their 10 minutes at the end of the speech to address the five households in the United States that haven’t already turned off their televisions to go play board games.
(Hold for members of the opposition party to stand up and grouse unintelligibly to express their urgent dissatisfaction at the preceding point.)
In this era of 24-hour cable news and political blogging, the actual giving of a speech is the least important part of the process. The pundits must be satiated days, even weeks in advance with leaks detailing everything the president will say. Thus, everyone who cares about the State of the Union already knows what Bush is going to say tonight.
According to reports, he’s going to demand that we Stay The Course in Iraq. Yawn.
He is supposed to outline a new system of tax breaks for health insurance that Democrats say is just as bad an idea as last year’s doomed Social Security initiative (and has about the same chance of actually passing). Ho-hum.
According to ABC News, interestingly, Republicans say that he is going to “remind public officials of their ethical obligations” in light of the recent scandals in Congress. How, exactly? Well, ABC News says, “He is not expected to endorse any specific lobbying reforms.” Nor is he expected to discuss recent scandals.
Well, then. That seems about as substantive as telling people in New Orleans to watch out for bad weather next time.
That’s not to say the State of the Union never ends up being interesting.
Remember the famous 15 words about yellow cake uranium in Niger? One sentence inserted into the State of the Union ended up destroying the president’s credibility on Iraq and eventually led to the Valerie Plame scandal and the indictment of a senior administration official with a funny name.
And last year, one of the first signs that it wasn’t going to be a super year for the White House was the submarining of the Social Security initiative that the President spent much of his address arguing for.
With that kind of track record, it’s a wonder President Bush hasn’t canceled this year’s speech, citing Laura’s firm in-bed-by-9-p.m. rule.
Who would have thought that the best the president could hope for tonight is a speech nobody will end up talking about?
I wonder if that’s the sort of thing the Framers had in mind.
The State of the Union address will continue to exemplify all that is wrong with current United States politics as long as it continues to be a meaningless speech in front of an audience of politicians who are just trying to get on camera by reacting as emphatically as possible.
On the other hand, wouldn’t it be great if Bush took the podium tonight, stared into the cameras, and said, “I don’t like the aggressive talk coming from the recently elected prime minister of Canada. That is why I have decided to give him 24 hours to step down, or I’m nuking Ottawa.”
Or maybe, “When I said I wanted Palestine to have free elections, I didn’t mean they should elect Hamas. I declare a do-over until I find the Palestinian legislature satisfactory.”
He could even take some questions, maybe from a Kansas State student wanting to know if he’s seen “Brokeback Mountain.”
Anything to make the Constitutionally mandated address that nobody watches more interesting or important.
Until then, I’ll be playing board games.
(Step back from the podium for a seven-minute standing ovation.)
If you’d like to play Sorry!, Boggle or Chutes and Ladders with Dan this evening, e-mail him at datherton@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.