picture the crowd in its underwear

yeah yeah, the 2007 State of the Union was mostly an unrealistic exercise in hot air blowing and political posturing. i get that. but i'm not here to bust dubya's chops or anyone else in washington for that matter. i'll leave that to the truly political blogs.

instead, what i offer you is the everyman point-of-view. to me, this speech sounded the way they always do: let's get every american a job; let's solve health care; let's cure AIDS in africa; let's talk tough to rogue nations; let's eliminate the use of fossil fuels; the time is now to teach every american student to read; no new taxes; balance the budget! cheaper fast food! robots in every household! better movies from hollywood! free massages for every american! two girls for every guy! (each statement followed by absurd durations of applause from the audience).

as bush talked about his dream agenda, it dawned on me that the moniker "state of the union" means little to nothing. there's nothing really necessary about this annual speech. it serves no practical purpose. the phrase: the state of our union is strong is often heard, but seemingly loosely argued.

and the thing is, i really would like to hear an honest speech about the state of our union. summing up the state - or health - of our country might be tricky. be isn't it possible? it wouldn't have to be a drab numerical breakdown of unemployment figures, murder rates, literacy scores and so on. just do three things: 1.) put things into perspective; 2.) set a succinct strategy for the current major challenges we face; 3.) inspire us. also, like going to the symphony, disallow any applause until the show is over. that'll reduce 10 or 15 minutes easily. shoot to keep it around 25-30 minutes. and that's all you have to do.

but these things will never happen. and so i must now dispense blame.

i could chose to blame the president, but he's too obvious a target. anyways, W is just following the pattern that's already been paved for him by previous administrations. dubya didn't invent the stale notion of the SotU. so i can't blame him for anything other than not having the guts or desire or vision to change the format.

rather than pinning all the blame on the president (whoever it might be), wouldn't it make more sense to blame the guys who actually write the speeches?


a few interesting notes about this SotU ritual. Did you know it's a constitutional requirement of the president to deliver this speech? Did you know it was modeled after the monarch's Speech of the Throne in the UK? Did you know Thomas Jefferson typed his SotU and had a clerk read it to congress, and he did this because he found the pomp and circumstance to be too monarchical? oh but that ol' scoundrel woodrow wilson brought back the big show in 1913.

here's where it gets more interesting. in the 1920's, calvin coolidge delivers the first SotU over the radio for all america to hear live. now i ask you, is it coincidence that coolidge is said to be the first president to have an official speechwriter? therefore, did mass media kill the notion of a self-expressive commander-in-chief?

i'd love to go back to the days of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Washington's Inaugural, but those days of candid thoughtfulness are clearly gone. too many media members listening all the time, searching for gaffes. fine.

so then, to the speechwriters: be brave! try taking a risk for once in your lives. stop cutting and pasting empty rhetoric from the archives. drop all the needless sentences. get to the point! just tell us in plain language what the state of the union actually is. that's it. that's all you have to do.