The State of the State of the Union
Article II, Section II of the US Constitution says: "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." From this relatively innocuous phrase we have derived the yearly American tradition of the President coming to Congress and making a large speech to the American public. Every couple of years, the State of the Union is called "the speech of [sitting president]'s career and whether or not he will bounce back to fight on lose his presidency based on one flubbed speech (spoiler alert: no president has lost everything because of a state of the union speech. Not even Hoover.) State of the Union in 2002 was extra-important given the events of 9/11, the War in Afghanistan and the coming war with Iraq. 1999 was also interesting given that congress was in the middle of investigating president Clinton at the time and would soon hold full impeachment hearings. FDR had the war and depression to report on. Eisenhower as basically giving his best SITREP as he saw the country. Clever readers will note there is no given frequency for these speeches, but we seem to have settled on yearly. This time around, however, the State of the Union takes on a slightly different tone as for the first time in a long time, people will not be seated just by party. They'll be sitting with either polar opposites from other side of the aisle, friends on the other side of the aisle or just almost at random. While this will lessen the number of applause breaks, but it most certainly also curtail outbursts like this one by Rep. Joe Wilson at the 2009 State of the Union. Almost certainly Rep. Gabrielle Giffords will be mentioned, even if she has been (tastefully) left out of this year's State of the Union Drinking Game.
It would be remiss and breaking with tradition to not address the history of the State of the Union speech. Washington gave them, of course, but didn't say anything that he wanted to do, only what had happened so far and a general how things were going; the world's most boring shareholder meeting. Adams, loving a chance for a good speech (have mercy, John, please!) also gave them to talk about how things were going, ranging from a breakout of disease in Philadelphia to how things were going with France and Holland. Jefferson, ever the iconoclast, didn't give one. He wrote letters and notes to Congress from time to time but never spoke. Some say this was because he found the whole thing smacked of royalism, but it most likely also stems from his lack of public speaking; Adams once referred to him as the red-headed tombstone whom he "never heard string three sentences together" while in the Continental Congress. Other presidents followed this same tradition for years. Lincoln gave no State of the Union address to congress, but he did write a letter letting them know of his intention to free the slaves. Woodrow Wilson, the former President of Princeton and one of Midnight Ranter's bottom five presidents, revived the idea, probably because he loved to hear the sound of his own voice. By this point, newspapers had become popular, so they were reprinted for the nation to read. FDR gave the first radio State of the Union and Truman did the first televised State of the Union. Bush broke tradition of just yearly when he held one just weeks after September 11th. Of course, the oddest tradition in all of this is that the president can't just waltz in and give the speech, he has to be invited by Congress. And this year will see the breaking of yet another tradition.
To much fanfare, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) suggested an idea that instead of sitting as unified parties, senators sit with other senators across the aisle. Chuck Shumer (D-NY) publicly invited Tom Coburn (R-CO) to sit next to him, which Sen. Coburn accepted. John McCain (R-AZ) will be sitting with Senator Udall. Jim Thune (R-ND) will be sitting Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), probably in an effort to rise his visibility since he's contemplating a run for the presidency in 2012. The more common theme is state senators sitting together: Casey (D) and Toomey (R) of Pennsylvania will sit together, as will Durbin (D) and Kirk (R) of Illinois and the entire Florida delegation, representatives included. No word on whom Lieberman (I-DE) will be sitting with. The only voice of almost-dissent has been Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who said on fox News Sunday: ". . .the American people are more interested in actual accomplishments on a bipartisan basis here in the next six to nine months than they are with the seating arrangement at the State of the Union." He also said he'll be sitting where he usually does and that the members don't have assigned seating. McConnell, the senatorial link between the Tea Party and more establishment Republicans, is walking a fine line between saying "it's a stupid idea because it's not important" and "it's a stupid idea because Democrats are stupid". Obviously, with the feelings in Washington these days, you can't say that. And Toomey and Kirk, both Tea Partiers, are participating in this little deal, so there's not even consensus there. Hell, it could be said that sitting with states rather than by party would be closer fitting the Founding Father's intent in all this. Then again, given that Jefferson (a Founding Father) did his best to kill this whole tradition, that might be a stretch.
Of course, the elephant in the room which will get mentioned tomorrow and caused so many senators to sit next to each other is the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and almost 20 other people a few weeks ago in Tuscon. There is little doubt that as part of the State of the Union we will get a state of Gabrielle Giffords update. And for the first time in a while, this little bit of what otherwise would be trivium or theater is actually appropriate. Somehow, the shooting of this representative has become a catalyst for civility. Many at the time of the shooting were blaming overly-violent imagery in political rhetoric, but it's nice to see that instead of trying to ban free speech, people were far more willing to monitor their own speech and try to reach a hand across the aisle. People are taking civility seriously. And yes, this is symbolic at best, it's still a step. Politics, more than anywhere else except birthdays, is a field where "it's the thought that counts" actually means something. If people are willing to publicly put forth the effort to reach out across the aisle, then more will be going on behind the scenes. If some want to make their reputations on NOT doing this kind of thing, then that will stick with them. Traditionally, American voters have swung between wanting rabid partisans who stick to their guns and responsible, affable representatives who can get things done.
And whoever can't read when the winds are shifting will be left sitting out in the cold.
So it is written, so do I see it.
It would be remiss and breaking with tradition to not address the history of the State of the Union speech. Washington gave them, of course, but didn't say anything that he wanted to do, only what had happened so far and a general how things were going; the world's most boring shareholder meeting. Adams, loving a chance for a good speech (have mercy, John, please!) also gave them to talk about how things were going, ranging from a breakout of disease in Philadelphia to how things were going with France and Holland. Jefferson, ever the iconoclast, didn't give one. He wrote letters and notes to Congress from time to time but never spoke. Some say this was because he found the whole thing smacked of royalism, but it most likely also stems from his lack of public speaking; Adams once referred to him as the red-headed tombstone whom he "never heard string three sentences together" while in the Continental Congress. Other presidents followed this same tradition for years. Lincoln gave no State of the Union address to congress, but he did write a letter letting them know of his intention to free the slaves. Woodrow Wilson, the former President of Princeton and one of Midnight Ranter's bottom five presidents, revived the idea, probably because he loved to hear the sound of his own voice. By this point, newspapers had become popular, so they were reprinted for the nation to read. FDR gave the first radio State of the Union and Truman did the first televised State of the Union. Bush broke tradition of just yearly when he held one just weeks after September 11th. Of course, the oddest tradition in all of this is that the president can't just waltz in and give the speech, he has to be invited by Congress. And this year will see the breaking of yet another tradition.
To much fanfare, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) suggested an idea that instead of sitting as unified parties, senators sit with other senators across the aisle. Chuck Shumer (D-NY) publicly invited Tom Coburn (R-CO) to sit next to him, which Sen. Coburn accepted. John McCain (R-AZ) will be sitting with Senator Udall. Jim Thune (R-ND) will be sitting Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), probably in an effort to rise his visibility since he's contemplating a run for the presidency in 2012. The more common theme is state senators sitting together: Casey (D) and Toomey (R) of Pennsylvania will sit together, as will Durbin (D) and Kirk (R) of Illinois and the entire Florida delegation, representatives included. No word on whom Lieberman (I-DE) will be sitting with. The only voice of almost-dissent has been Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who said on fox News Sunday: ". . .the American people are more interested in actual accomplishments on a bipartisan basis here in the next six to nine months than they are with the seating arrangement at the State of the Union." He also said he'll be sitting where he usually does and that the members don't have assigned seating. McConnell, the senatorial link between the Tea Party and more establishment Republicans, is walking a fine line between saying "it's a stupid idea because it's not important" and "it's a stupid idea because Democrats are stupid". Obviously, with the feelings in Washington these days, you can't say that. And Toomey and Kirk, both Tea Partiers, are participating in this little deal, so there's not even consensus there. Hell, it could be said that sitting with states rather than by party would be closer fitting the Founding Father's intent in all this. Then again, given that Jefferson (a Founding Father) did his best to kill this whole tradition, that might be a stretch.
Of course, the elephant in the room which will get mentioned tomorrow and caused so many senators to sit next to each other is the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and almost 20 other people a few weeks ago in Tuscon. There is little doubt that as part of the State of the Union we will get a state of Gabrielle Giffords update. And for the first time in a while, this little bit of what otherwise would be trivium or theater is actually appropriate. Somehow, the shooting of this representative has become a catalyst for civility. Many at the time of the shooting were blaming overly-violent imagery in political rhetoric, but it's nice to see that instead of trying to ban free speech, people were far more willing to monitor their own speech and try to reach a hand across the aisle. People are taking civility seriously. And yes, this is symbolic at best, it's still a step. Politics, more than anywhere else except birthdays, is a field where "it's the thought that counts" actually means something. If people are willing to publicly put forth the effort to reach out across the aisle, then more will be going on behind the scenes. If some want to make their reputations on NOT doing this kind of thing, then that will stick with them. Traditionally, American voters have swung between wanting rabid partisans who stick to their guns and responsible, affable representatives who can get things done.
And whoever can't read when the winds are shifting will be left sitting out in the cold.
So it is written, so do I see it.