Will you watch the President’s State of the Union address? I confess, I will not.
Granted, that means I may miss out on some seamy, scandalous or absurd moments of political entertainment, such as the instance when a dimwitted Republican Congressman a few years ago bellowed “You Lie!” at President Obama, but that’s what YouTube is for. If I want to catch the improvisational comedy inherent in any speech by any President to a room full of people, roughly half of whom will applaud him if he sneezes, while the other half sits stony faced, hoping their PR flacks come up with a good sound bite for the after speech spin room, I can always search the innertubes and fast forward to the bits that interest me, if any.
Unfortunately, most State of the Union speeches are full of platitudes, obscure warnings about the opposing party, calls for “unity” and vague promises to take action when in truth we all know that no action will likely be taken unless the party to which the President belongs controls a large majority in the House and at least 60 senate seats. And even then, nothing is assured. Public Option, anyone?
On the other hand, I am tempted to watch the Rand Paul response to President Obama’s speech (but not the Rubio one) because, like most people, I can’t turn my eyes away from a train wreck. Still, I expect to resist that temptation, too. After all, there’s only so much of Rand Paul’s whiny voice one can endure, and that is doubly so when there is no one present to interrupt his inane diatribes.
But if, unlike me, you see value in viewing tonight’s State of the Union speech in real time, please, do not hesitate to give me your reasons why my attitude about this American modified version of kabuki theater needs adjustment.
Well, you could watch it for the same reason people watched the Bulls when Michael Jordan played for them or the 49ers under Joe Montana or Derek Jeter’s Yankees. You watch because you will witness something you are unlikely to see again in your lifetime…someone operating at the highest level of their profession.
My favorite SOTU speech of all time was the one Clinton gave in 1999, in the midst of the Senate trial for his removal from office. He was brilliant.
exactly why i stopped watching tv years ago.
Having been a (part time) speech writer in a former life, I am fascinated by the craft and in awe of the Jon Favreau led speech writing team currently employed by the President. I understand Jon Favreau is to resign and start writing screenplays next month so I hope we get a reprise of the West Wing or similar series.
As for the speech itself, I see it as broadly symbolic, setting out the parameters of the President’s legislative priorities and seeking to paint all opposition to these priorities as an unreasonable obstruction of the will and needs of the American people. It’s about setting expectations, not detailed proposals, and the tiniest change in emphasis from previous speeches will be parsed endlessly.
I would expect the President to be more assertive, less compromising, and more “visionary” than previous speeches: more focused on end-goals than on the process, and asking the American people to buy into his vision. The implications for Republicans will be obvious: work constructively with me or you will be blown away.
But what do I know? My focus is elsewhere now, and most people throughout the world no longer look to the US for much in the way of leadership – sorry Boo, we’ll have to differ on that one – Obama may be one hell of a lot better than any conceivable alternative in the US, but the dysfunctionality and corporatism of the US system has made the US almost irrelevant to any progressive agenda anywhere else in the world.
… but the dysfunctionality and corporatism of the US system has made the US almost irrelevant to any progressive agenda anywhere else in the world.
Isn’t that the same all over the world? Look at Labour in the U.K. Or the Socialists in Spain.
Cameron’s Conservatives, Merkel’s Christian Democrats and Spain’s People’s Party of PM Rajoy operate more liberal/progressive than the Democrats in the States. On the other hand, the economic might of North America should not be underestimated. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and failures in Afghanistan gave plenty of global PR [bad publicity]. The turn-around of Obama’s foreign policy taking less initiative in military action (North Africa and Syria) will be detrimental for Europe during the next 10 years. Watch for migration across the Mediterranean and further jihadist terror strikes. These countries were set to blossom in an economic cooperation with the EU, this will not happen. Even Turkey is now looking towards the East after been put on a slow pace for (im)possible entry to the EU.
Large map UNHCR migration routes Europe’s Southern Schengen border – link. [pdf – 7Mb]
Yes, but we used to be able to look to the US for some positive inspiration…
I’m hearing alot of commentary that this year will see Obama forsaking the carrot and stick approach for a cattle prod shove.
The R’s cry for Obama to be a leader, for him to come to them so that they can make smart choices; well, the talk is he will come to them, but not with an open palm but a closed fist.
To Frank’s point, the writing is what draws me. Its eloquence has something I just can’t ignore.
It can be fun to watch the GOP cringe, but that’s all I got.
Not gonna happen. Can’t recall that it happened even when Nixon went down.
The Constitution does not require a huge folderol State of the Union speech. Nor does it require it to be annually. It only requires:
The early Presidents merely sent a letter to Congress.
What has happened is that the event has morphed into a second high holy day (the highest being inauguration) intended to make the opposition applaud for the President and little else. The first supreme high holy day of the US civil religion, which dramatizes the people’s acceptance of the President’s legitimacy to preside over the government. And the President’s oath to be faithful to the Constitution.
It’s fun to watch these little liturgies as long as you don’t take them as rational discourse. It has indeed become the equivalent of a sermon on the US civil religion with the issues of the day through in to provide a “new dedication to the task at hand.” Taxpayers pay for the pomp and circumstance; they should enjoy it. And not take it very seriously.
What Joe Wilson did was essentially deliberately farting in church.
Well, I won’t watch because I’m still left-over pissed-off from last year’s speech, which went by without so much as a single mention of the public option, never mind a call to expropriate the expropriators, or a declaration that property was theft.
And Van Jones wasn’t sitting with the First Lady.
I mean, when you elect a University of Chicago law professor President, that’s more or less what you expect, what you’re entitled to, now isn’t it?