[Mb-civic] Ban the Bombast! - Lewis L. Gould - Washington Post Sunday Outlook

[William Swiggard]

Ban the Bombast!
State of the Union? It's Nothing but Theater

By Lewis L. Gould
Sunday, January 29, 2006; B01

It is time to end the meaningless annual ritual of the State of the 
Union address. What began as a yearly survey of the nation's condition 
has deteriorated into a frivolous moment of political theater and 
continuous campaigning.

On Tuesday night, President Bush, like his recent predecessors, will 
play his part in the gaudy spectacle of ballyhoo and hype that the State 
of the Union has become. From a Rocky-style entrance of the president 
through a gantlet of applauding solons to the introduction of 
mini-celebrities carefully situated in the gallery, the prime-time 
extravaganza will have all the spontaneity of -- and about as much 
meaning as -- a televised Hollywood awards ceremony.

More like an acceptance speech at a national convention than a candid 
review of the nation's situation at the outset of a new year, the State 
of the Union has evolved into a semi-imperial speech from the throne. In 
the process, the event has lost most of its reason for taking place. 
Congress and the president have better things to do than to be part of 
these empty festivities.

When the Framers of the Constitution directed the president "from time 
to time to give the Congress Information of the State of the Union," 
they envisioned a serious report from the chief executive that would 
enlighten lawmakers and the public about the nation's needs. It didn't 
have to be at a particular time of year. For more than a century, when 
presidents transmitted their annual messages in writing to Capitol Hill, 
they felt compelled to review the work of the Cabinet departments, 
examine pressing social problems and recommend solutions. In most cases, 
these documents were anything but lively. A century ago, for example, 
Theodore Roosevelt devoted thousands of words in his message to railroad 
regulation, immigration, copyright laws, criminal justice and the civil 
service, among other topics. Newspapers published his annual message in 
full and political debate followed in Congress and across the country 
about what the president wanted to accomplish.

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson became the first president since John Adams to 
deliver the presidential message in person, and the older style of 
elaborate written reviews of the State of the Union began to give way to 
shorter remarks tailored first for the congressional audience and later 
for radio listeners. But after World War II, with the emergence of 
television, the possibilities for dramatizing the State of the Union 
proved irresistible. Holding it in prime time for the larger television 
audience was a logical move; the first evening address since World War 
II came in 1965 with Lyndon B. Johnson. On just two subsequent occasions 
-- Richard Nixon in 1973 and Jimmy Carter in 1981 -- presidents reverted 
to the 19th-century custom of simply sending a written message to 
Congress. (Carter, having just lost to Reagan, submitted a 76-page 
report in writing and gave a shorter televised farewell from the Oval 
Office.) The major innovations in the direction of a media spectacular 
came in the 1980s and 1990s. Ronald Reagan pioneered the use of heroes, 
prominent Americans and symbolic figures who were seated in the 
visitors' gallery of the House. Soon the composition of this living 
tableau became as nuanced as 5electing a jury or arranging a beauty pageant.

A deft continuous campaigner himself, Bill Clinton took the process a 
step further when he saw the possibilities of making the State of the 
Union into the opening thrust in a prolonged campaign to build support 
for his agenda. The State of the Union address no longer seemed 
sufficient unto itself but instead served as a prelude to well-staged 
rallies around the country that kept the chief executive in the 
headlines. The president could slip the bonds of the noisy Washington 
press corps and fly away to venues where the audience was friendlier, 
the questions less adversarial and the response enthusiastic.

George W. Bush, who believes that campaigning equals governing, has also 
used the State of the Union as an opening act for a parade of rallies 
and appearances that move seamlessly from Capitol Hill to the hustings. 
And Bush and his media-savvy handlers have raised to political art the 
old Reagan device of introducing symbolic figures in the gallery. From 
Ahmed Chalabi as a putative (and later tarnished) symbol of success in 
Iraq to Alan Greenspan as a totem of the worthiness of tax cuts, the 
pre-positioned living mannequins assure Bush's viewers of a president's 
deepest commitments.

The serial bloviaters who masquerade as journalists on cable television 
have added their two cents to the show-business erosion of the State of 
the Union as a serious matter. Reaction shots of lawmakers provide 
endless fodder for issue-starved commentators. Let Sen. Hillary Clinton 
wince on camera at any point during Tuesday night, and slow-motion 
replays of her grimace will dominate a news cycle -- whether she was 
unhappy with the speech or just suffering a bit of indigestion.

In January 1967, Lady Bird Johnson wrote in her diary that "everything 
leads up to the State of the Union." Four decades later, her remark has 
become even more telling. Political events are aligned to showcase what 
the president is going to say and to buttress the aura of strength and 
vitality that the speech is designed to convey. Thus, the confirmation 
vote on Judge Samuel Alito Jr. to sit on the Supreme Court must occur 
before the State of the Union to afford the president the opportunity to 
salute the newest member of the high court. This year the Republican 
House leadership also took advantage of the relatively late date for the 
speech to postpone the opening of its session. Thus, the embattled House 
GOP could schedule its contentious leadership battle after the State of 
the Union, and not mar the president's moment with intra-party bickering.

Even the best set decoration, however, cannot always overcome 
circumstances. Bush must now give his sixth State of the Union message 
without the accompanying drama of recent terrorist attacks such as those 
that preceded the 2002 address and without being on the brink of war in 
Iraq, as we were in 2003. Like the sixth or seventh husband of an 
oft-wed screen star, the president knows what is expected of him. But 
how does he make the minutiae of health savings accounts or enhanced tax 
deductions for medical expenses interesting for his audience at home? 
The mysteries of co-pays and the "doughnut" in the Medicare drug benefit 
are not likely to bring viewers to the edge of their sofas.

Too often now, the president does not report on the state of the union 
and build recommendations based on the country's situation and needs. 
Instead, like a carnival barker, he offers a laundry list of new 
programs, most of which will not be remembered much after the final 
applause dies down.

In a larger sense, the emphasis on spectacle, soothing rhetoric and 
crowd-pleasing initiatives over the past two decades has had another 
more dangerous effect. Candor has left the Capitol. Imagine if, two days 
from now, the president said: "The state of the union is not good. Iraq 
is an insoluble mess, Iran is a long-term threat, terrorism menaces us 
all, the Army is strained to the breaking point, the budget is out of 
whack, global warming threatens the existence of humanity, and there are 
no easy answers, quick solutions or painless sacrifices." This sort of 
frankness from the presidential podium would evoke bewilderment and then 
scorn from the molders of elite opinion. They would say: What could have 
motivated a president to speak in such strident tones and with so little 
regard for the sensibilities of Americans accustomed to half-time 
celebrations and rousing rallies?

The State of the Union message has become mind candy or mere partisan 
spin for both parties. Abolishing it will not instill seriousness or 
adult values in our politicians, but at least the nation could go back 
to its regularly scheduled programming and not have to sit through yet 
another yearly exercise in posturing and collective delusion.

<>Author's e-mail:  llgould at hotmail.com <mailto:llgould at hotmail.com>

Lewis Gould, professor of history emeritus at the University of Texas, 
Austin, is the author of "The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the 
Modern United States Senate" (Basic Books) and six other books on the 
presidency and Congress.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701331.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060129/ea21c1ea/attachment.htm