2003 Year in Review

The State of the State of the Union - Updated

The state of the union is almost in the condition Senator Edward Kennedy proposed in his state of the union address (January 20, 2003) before the National Press Club. At least it is according to President George Bush who delivered the annual president’s State of the Union address to the combined houses of Congress on January 28.

The Constitution directs only that “The President ... 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.” A casual reference to be sure and one that can be taken in several ways. Does “from time to time” mean once a year? Could the president make an address every six months, say? Or only once every two years?

George Washington and John Adams set the pattern of the yearly address to Congress. These first Annual Messages by Washington and Adams in the 1790s were small, but highly ceremonial affairs, in keeping with the pageantry of the British monarchy. Thomas Jefferson disliked the pomp and circumstance, equating it with America’s royal past. In keeping with his democratic-republican sentiments, he chose to send a written message rather than deliver a speech. It is worth noting that Jefferson, while a writer of great eloquence, was not a very good public speaker, even shy by some accounts, which may explain in some measure his desire not to deliver the speech to a joint session of Congress.

Jefferson’s less elaborate method provided the standard for the next century – Annual Messages were delivered to Congress and read aloud to its members. State of the Union addresses delivered to Congress during the past century have evolved ---presidents have used the address to speak out on numerous critical issues: Medicare and Social Security, tax reform, foreign policy spending, education, crime and drugs, the environment, trade, war, and more, such as Bush’s extended appeal to aid Africa to contain the AIDS epidemic.

Woodrow Wilson revived the practice of delivering the address in person to the Congress in 1913. “A president is likely to read his own message rather better than a clerk would,” he remarked. With Wilson, the delivery of the State of the Union address began to take on the characteristics of a media event. While Wilson’s audience could not hear his words, they could see his moving image in the silent newsreels that were a common feature in theaters of the day. From seeing their presidents in silent newsreels, to hearing them via radio, to seeing and hearing them in talking pictures, and then real-time television, the American public has seen the reintroduction of the pomp and circumstance deplored by Jefferson – albeit, it is a pomp and circumstance generated and elaborated by the media. And the presidents have seized on this greater interest to play politics with their audiences.

The early presidents usually gave a laundry list of programs and issues the Congress should attend to during its yearly deliberations. Following the Civil War, Andrew Johnson used the occasion to attack the Radical Republicans for their harsh treatment of the South; in his last message Ulysses Grant used the occasion to defend his administration against accusations of corruption. The Annual Message, then, has been used from its inception for a variety of causes and purposes, some profound and some profane.

Bush’s speech last evening was not a general message to the people about the state of the nation. It was a policy speech defending his administration on a variety of implied charges: lack of cooperation with the United Nations; lack of success in the War on Terror; tax breaks for the wealthy; neglect of the health of the poor and elderly; and so forth.

Naturally Bush, like Senator Kennedy the week before, promised much – tax breaks for the average Joe, reformed Medicare and prescription drug assistance to seniors. The American economy is improving and growing at a steady rate. The pursuit of terrorists is going great, with the assistance of many allies, and high-ranking terrorists have been captured or killed, and the greatest evil is now being confronted – Saddam Hussein’s days are few and numbered. Yes, all is going well and according to plan. Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton could not have painted a more vivid picture of where the country is headed.

Yet, like Senator Kennedy’s message, Bush’s report to the country was directed at those who already make up his political base; he made no passionate attempts to persuade or convert those who differ with him. The messages have become so partisan networks are required to offer equal time for opposing party rebuttals. And shame upon shame, the public is now subject to “prebuttals’ – comments on the State of the Union address before it is delivered to the joint session of Congress. Copies of the speech are strategically released to the press and members of Congress beforehand.

Some news pundits predict that because the speech has become so politically motivated, in a few years the major networks will not bother carrying the event – much like they have reduced the amount of coverage of the presidential nominating conventions. Like the conventions, the annual address is a money loser for them. Once the networks boasted of “gavel to gavel” coverage of the conventions; now, the viewing audience is restricted to nightly summaries and some full coverage of the final night when the chosen candidates appear to their faithful.

Former presidential speechwriter Peggy Noonan put the emphasis quite succinctly. In response to Alan Colmes’ comment following President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address that “[t]he pomp and circumstance goes with the president,” she replied, “The president is on stage...the State of the Union is a big event all on its own…and [the president] can make it be big and have meaning or he can…make it showbiz.” (Hannity and Colmes, January 28, 2003)

Thus, we may find ourselves coming full circle. From Washington and Adams delivering their addresses to much pomp and circumstance to Jefferson’s simply sending the message to Congress to be read by a Congressional assistant, to Wilson and the advent of the media event, to Bush and the pomp and circumstance apparent at the 2003 State of the Union message. With another president we may get back to presidents simply sending the message to Congress to be read aloud by a lowly intern.

In many ways, as with the nominating conventions, it would be a blessing. Politics is politics, but the true state of the nation deserves more than partisan attention whether it comes from a Senator Kennedy or from a President Bush. It should be more than a photo-op for fawning Congressional members, Democrat and Republican. To view the glad-handing and back-slapping as members of Congress swarmed to be near the president illuminates the show-biz nature to which this public event has evolved.

The Annual Message should be addressed to and for the American people, with meaning and purpose for the people. Otherwise, in keeping with the “…shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union…” provision of the Constitution, a compilation of press conferences might actually offer more real information as to the state of the nation.

by William Driver, Guest Columnist
February 2, 2003