End the SotU?

 Stumbling on this six year-old article in the Washington Post today, I was reminded of the history of the State of the Union address. The address has been delivered in person, more or less continuously, since the Wilson Administration. Prior to that, it was usually sent to Congress in the form of a letter, to be read out on the President’s behalf to a joint session of both chambers. It seems that this practice owes much to Thomas Jefferson, who thought that a President delivering an address to Congress in person seemed too monarchical, as it resembled the custom of the Speech from the Throne in the Westminster system. These days, it would seem that the ceremony is much more extravagant and monarchical than in Jefferson’s day.

The author of the WaPo article, Lewis L. Gould, notes that the constitution’s requirement that Presidents inform Congress of the ‘state of the union’ was never intended to be an annual festivity with a surfeit of pomp and ceremony, and that pre-Wilson addresses tended to take the form of wonkish policy recommendations rather than short, soundbite-friendly speeches. He also makes a good point when noting that the SotU has the atmosphere of a pep rally, and doesn’t encourage a President to speak frankly about the nation’s problems.

The State of the Union address appears monarchical largely because the President need not submit to questioning by members of Congress on the agenda he has just laid out. He simply stands above them and delivers his list of demands. In many ways, it symbolises the President’s aloofness from the political fray which characterises the American model of separation of the legislature from the executive. That same aloofness is responsible for the glorification of some Presidents as god-like figures (FDR, Reagan, etc.) and others as lonely, hopeless figures (Hoover, Carter, etc.)

Imagine if the United States adopted the provision of the Confederate constitution which allowed for members of the executive branch to appear before either house of Congress for questioning. An American Question Time would allow for a President to fight for his agenda in Congress, and would lead to a stronger party system, as the President would be visibly serving as the leader of his party rather than as appearing to hover above the partisan fray. It would cut Presidents down to size, but would also give them an opportunity to secure greater support for their policies by affording them a daily chance to trash the alternative ideas of their opponents. It would annoy all those talking heads in the Lamestream Media who bemoan the loss of some mythical state called ‘bipartisanship’ in Washington. And best of all, it might lead to the election of better Presidents, as the role of the chief executive would come to be seen as more about getting legislation passed, rather than as speechifying and parroting the same old American exceptionalist cliches.