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.