The increasingly puerile spectacle of presidential State of the Union addresses is indicative of the state of the union, and is unnecessary: The Constitution requires only that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union.”
But a reaction may be brewing against these embarrassing events. Speaking in Alabama, Chief Justice John Roberts said “to the extent that” this occasion “has degenerated into a political pep rally,” he is “not sure why we’re there.” He was referring to Supreme Court justices. But why is anyone there?
Roberts was responding to a question concerning the kerfuffle about Barack Obama’s January address, wherein Obama criticized — and flagrantly mischaracterized — a recent Supreme Court decision that loosened limits on political speech, while the six justices who were present sat silently. Justice Sam Alito, in an act of lese majeste, appeared to mutter “not true” about Obama’s untruths.
When Republican presidents deliver these addresses, Republican legislators, too, lurch up and down like puppets on strings. And Congress wonders why it is considered infantile.
Most of the blame for the State of the Union silliness, as for so much else, goes to The Root of Much Mischief, aka Woodrow Wilson. But a president whose middle name was Wilson made matters worse.
George Washington delivered his report on the state of the union in person, as did John Adams. Thomas Jefferson put his thoughts in writing and dispatched them to Congress. Such presidential reticence is impossible to imagine in the Age of Obama.
In 1913, however, Wilson, whose guiding principle was that the world could not hear too much from him, delivered his report in person. He thought the Founders had foolishly saddled the nation with a Constitution of checks and balances that made government sluggish or paralytic. Hence charismatic presidential leadership was needed to arouse public opinion that could compel Congress to bow to the president’s will.
Many conservatives were congressional supremacists until Ronald Wilson Reagan arrived possessing the rhetorical skills requisite for a Wilsonian presidency. His unfortunate filigree on the dramaturgy of State of the Union addresses was to begin the practice of stocking the House gallery with ordinary but exemplary people whose presence touches the public’s erogenous zones.
We could take one small step toward restoring institutional equilibrium by thinking as Jefferson did about State of the Union addresses. Justice Antonin Scalia has stopped going to them because justices “sit there like bumps on a log” in the midst of the partisan posturing — the political pep rally that Roberts described. Sis boom bah humbug.
Next year, Roberts and the rest of the justices should stay away from the president’s address. So should the uniformed military, who are out of place in a setting of competitive political grandstanding. For that matter, the 535 legislators should boycott these undignified events. They would, if there were that many grown-ups averse to being props in the childishness of popping up from their seats to cheer, or remaining sullenly seated, as the politics of the moment dictates.
In the unlikely event that Obama or any other loquacious modern president has any thoughts about the State of the Union that he does not pour forth in the torrential course of his relentless rhetoric, he can mail those thoughts to Congress. The Postal Service needs the business.
