Why Haven’t We Changed the State of the Union?
| Photo courtesy of Jon Tyson on Unsplash.
The opinions reflected in this OpEd are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of staff, faculty and students of The King's College.
The spectacle of Joe Biden’s 62-minute-long State of the Union address underscored the tradition’s desperate need of a radical overhaul. The address has become a political football that serves no one’s best interests and has long worn out its welcome.
The justification for the State of the Union tradition stems from Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution which states that the president shall “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” While there was no set time requirement for such reports, early American presidents began to provide them in written form on an annual basis. The State of the Union was initially intended to be a briefing for the members of Congress only and it was not designed to be a public speech. It was only in the early 1900s that presidents began to deliver their addresses in person. With the advent of radio and then television, it morphed over time from a speech to Congress to an opportunity for the executive to present their administration’s agenda to the nation.
Biden’s strikingly normal Congressional address felt especially jarring in a starkly abnormal world. Entering year three of a global pandemic, scarcely one year removed from an angry mob breaching the very building in which he stood and with Russia amid an attempt to conquer a sovereign country through open warfare, the setting on Capitol Hill was quite dramatic.
Despite these, the entire production felt relatively familiar. The majority of the room wore no masks (the House of Representatives face covering requirements were conveniently lifted that very day), and the President trotted out the same tired talking points that he has been recycling since his campaign for office began.
With the notable exception of his introductory remarks condemning Putin’s actions in Ukraine, Biden’s speech highlighted the glaring need for a new approach to the commander-in-chief’s Constitutional duty. If you were looking for substantive policy proposals or insightful patriotic discourse, you would have been sorely disappointed by this year’s State of the Union or any from the past 20 years. Instead, Biden treated us to an odd combination of Build Back Better holdovers stuck in political limbo, absurd economic platitudes and carefully calculated political moderation on key topics. Between nonsensically scolding corporations that they should “lower your costs, not your wages” and implying that he has always been against defunding the police, his objective was as confused as his closing line: “May God protect our troops. Go get him!”
In an era as politically charged and media saturated as our current moment, a speech as long as this (made agonizingly longer by incessant rounds of standing ovations) requires a major overhaul. The speech should have a clear and compelling thesis, identify the greatest threats that challenge our nation and provide a few specific and bipartisan solutions all within 20 or 30 minutes. Taking the opportunity of the national spotlight to rattle off a legislative bucket list and then offering up vulnerable people as political props to accomplish it is ineffective and unbecoming of the office. The Constitutional requirements afford a substantial amount of leeway for the president to adjust their mode of informing Congress concerning the State of the Union, and Biden would do well to consider doing so in the future.
Brent Buterbaugh is a senior majoring in Politics, Philosophy and Economics. A longtime enthusiast of suits, ties and politics, he currently serves as the Student Body President at King's and works as a Content Manager for National Review.