Like many Americans, I listened to the State of the Union speech delivered on 28 April 2021. I was curious about what the President would say. Cynics were rather sure they would hear a speech that was both boring yet radical. They were correct. It was hardly a riveting speech, but should that be expected? Indeed what should we expect of such an address? This is what Article II, Section 3 of our Constitution states of the President’s report.
“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.”
That’s pretty simple and clear.
Moreover the President is not required to deliver a speech at all, but rather provide Congress with information on the condition of our union and offer recommendations to Congress that he deems “necessary and expedient.”
For the first 125 years of our existence as a republic, the requirement to report to Congress was mostly satisfied by written communication. That was the practice until 1913 when President Woodrow Wilson delivered his report as an address to Congress pro se, or in person, to emphasize and build support for his governing agenda. Subsequent presidents have followed suit, and with the advent of electronic mass media the State of the Union has become a prominent national address.
Set amid the glamour of a joint session with cabinet members, justices of the Supreme Court and other dignities, frequently including the spouse of the President and a host of special guests in the gallery above the House floor, the President has a platform to directly engage the Congress and the nation with his plans for the coming year. In many ways it has become more of a campaign rally than a formal report to Congress on the State of the Union. As such, recent addresses have been sparse on details, excessively partisan, and dramatized by the introduction of notable guests, the latter often serving as props for support of some policy or priority.
Unsurprisingly, the speeches have been used to highlight and boast about presidential accomplishments rather than a genuine communication of “information” and “measures” that are “expedient” to the American people. As a practical matter, the address has become a bootless venture filled with bromides and bereft of specifics, yet high on political drama that is both unsatisfying and unnecessary. We do not require more political drama in America today.
So what should we expect of a State of the Union address? As noted, the requirement to offer one is very generalized, but a good start to answering that question can be found in the Preamble of the Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Founders of our nation and the authors of our Constitution were very concerned with the conditions of our union. Moreover, they knew that the Chief Executive would be in a good place to make recommendations concerning its health. It would be prudent, therefore, for the President to offer his opinion. However, one would think that such a report would touch on the expectations the Founders expressed in the Preamble. Things that would contribute to a more perfect union, including justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense for all States of our union, including the promotion of the general welfare, those things that contribute to the “blessings” of liberties and “our posterity,” indeed the future of the nation.
I think the address I heard did little of that. We were told that we can spend our way to prosperity by incurring fathomless debt, that the Federal government should trespass on the prerogatives of the States, namely in establishing election law, and that we will be a stronger, better union if we pit one subset of Americans against another. But little was said that would speak to the key issue that besets us, disunity, and what to do about it.
The speech we should have heard should have been about “common sense and common ground” for our nation, not one that “pushes us apart.” That “creating a crisis is not compassion” as we have seen on our southern border. That America is “not a racist nation” nor should race be a “weapon to settle our disputes.” Indeed, it would have been impressive to hear the President say this along with an acknowledgement that we don’t need more “Washington themes or socialist schemes.” That’s the presidential speech we should have heard, and later did from Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). There’s hope.
PS: Good News! My publisher wants to offer my book Desert Redleg: Artillery Warfare in the First Gulf War in softback too! But if you want a signed hardback copy, you can visit Shop on my website and order one directly from me, autographed and personalized as you desire. So order your copy today!
Categories: CBW
0 Comments