Don’t Watch the State of the Union

The president’s annual speech promises to be boring — and politics as usual.

US President Barack Obama pauses before delivering his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on February 12, 2013 at the US Capitol in Washington. 
National Journal
Charlie Cook
Jan. 27, 2014, 4:27 p.m.

Tues­day the na­tion will watch Wash­ing­ton’s an­nu­al State of the Uni­on Ka­buki dance.

The pres­id­ent’s speech­writers will have star­ted out to craft an im­port­ant and thought­ful speech, de­term­ined to avoid hav­ing their boss de­liv­er an­oth­er really bor­ing mono­logue that is both a laun­dry list of what the pres­id­ent wants to do and what he would do if the op­pos­i­tion party and spe­cial-in­terest groups rolled over and played dead for the rest of the year. But by the end of the pro­cess, des­pite the best of in­ten­tions, it will very likely sound like all of the oth­ers. Journ­al­ists will sol­emnly pro­nounce that this speech is crit­ic­al for Pres­id­ent Obama be­cause of blah, blah, and blah, pro­claim­ing that this State of the Uni­on ad­dress is everything but life or death. Then, as soon as the speech is fin­ished, me­dia sy­co­phants, mem­bers of the pres­id­ent’s party, and ideo­lo­gic­al brethren will say that it was a mo­ment­ous ad­dress, one that truly rivaled Lin­coln’s at Gettys­burg, while the op­pos­i­tion party and its toad­ies will de­clare it so wrong­headed and the de­liv­ery so bad that they won­der if something might be wrong with the pres­id­ent.

We will also wit­ness sev­er­al dozen mem­bers of Con­gress spend­ing the bet­ter part of the day claim­ing and hold­ing seats near the House cham­ber’s cen­ter aisle, in hopes of get­ting shown on na­tion­al tele­vi­sion, or per­haps even shak­ing hands or ex­chan­ging a few words with the pres­id­ent. One won­ders how their con­stitu­ents would feel if they knew that their rep­res­ent­at­ives were little more than polit­ic­al groupies. Un­said is that for many of these law­makers, it is the only per­son­al in­ter­ac­tion with the pres­id­ent they will ever have.

“Journ­al­ists will sol­emnly pro­nounce that this speech is crit­ic­al for Pres­id­ent Obama be­cause of blah, blah, and blah”

This is the way it al­ways goes, re­gard­less of who the pres­id­ent is, wheth­er he is a Demo­crat or a Re­pub­lic­an, or wheth­er Con­gress is of the same party, in op­pos­i­tion hands, or di­vided. It is in­ev­it­able. On my deathbed — hope­fully many, many years from now — this will be on the long list of hours that I will wish I could re­trieve and spend do­ing al­most any­thing else, even watch­ing old tele­vi­sion re­runs.

The truth is that State of the Uni­on speeches are al­most al­ways dread­ful and bor­ing. Any of us can count on one hand the few that were not. For me, Pres­id­ent Clin­ton’s 1998 SOTU speech was a not­able ex­cep­tion; the Mon­ica Lew­in­sky scan­dal had broken just days be­fore and all eyes were glued to tele­vi­sions, won­der­ing wheth­er Clin­ton would have the im­print of a fry­ing pan on his head, or ap­pear at a loss for words in such a hor­rif­ic cir­cum­stance. In­stead, he gave a ter­rif­ic speech, leav­ing even his worst crit­ics shak­ing their heads. How could someone de­liv­er a speech that well, that coolly, un­der such pres­sure? Few of the oth­er SOTU speeches have been even re­motely so mem­or­able.

There gen­er­ally has been a pat­tern for pres­id­ents that few­er Amer­ic­ans watch each of their SOTU speeches than the year be­fore. For Obama, the trend has been an ab­so­lute rule: The num­bers have dropped each year. This pat­tern makes sense if you think about it. At the be­gin­ning of year six, there usu­ally isn’t a lot that a pres­id­ent can or will say that people would find very in­ter­est­ing. In­deed, one could write a movie screen­play about second-term pres­id­ents titled They’re Just Not That In­to You Any­more.

At this point in his second term, Pres­id­ent Re­agan’s ap­prov­al rat­ing was at 63 per­cent. His stand­ing re­mained quite high un­til the Ir­an-Con­tra scan­dal broke just after the 1986 midterm elec­tions, drop­ping 15 points in just a week or so and even­tu­ally fall­ing to 43 per­cent. His num­bers hovered in the 40s un­til June 1988 — his last year in of­fice — at which point they began to climb again, end­ing up at 63 per­cent, where he was just be­fore the scan­dal. Clin­ton’s num­bers, which had peaked at 73 per­cent at the end of 1998, were at 60 per­cent at this point in his pres­id­ency, and re­mained around the high 50s and low 60s, des­pite the scan­dal, for the rest of his pres­id­ency. His peri­od in the rat­ings cel­lar was in his first term, hav­ing dropped in­to the high 30s once in 1993 and again in 1994, lead­ing in­to the Demo­crat­ic Party’s dis­astrous midterm elec­tion.

Obama’s second-term num­bers are thus far track­ing closely with those of George W. Bush, who was plagued with an un­pop­u­lar de­cision to in­vade Ir­aq and cri­ti­cism over his ad­min­is­tra­tion’s hand­ling of Hur­ricane Kat­rina. Bush was — and Obama is — run­ning around 43 per­cent in re­cent Gal­lup polling at the six-year mark. Bush went on to drop in­to the high 20s dur­ing his last two years in of­fice. Through Jan. 26, Obama’s Gal­lup job ap­prov­al was 41 per­cent, with 52 per­cent dis­ap­prov­al; oth­er re­cent polls have shown the pres­id­ent’s ap­prov­al as high as 46 per­cent.

Cov­er­age of the State of the Uni­on ad­dress is one of the few times when the me­dia is play­ing along with the politi­cians. Print journ­al­ists want their art­icles read, so they hype up the im­port­ance of the event. Tele­vi­sion and ra­dio pro­du­cers, along with cor­res­pond­ents, want their broad­casts seen, so they play things up as well.

The pres­id­ent’s party will talk about how great the speech was, and the op­pos­i­tion party will counter with how bad it was. Most people will just yawn and wish they hadn’t wasted over an hour of their life watch­ing something that they will re­mem­ber little of a week later.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4684) }}

What We're Following See More »
Kristol Recruiting National Review’s David French for Third-Party Run
6 hours ago

"Two Republicans intimately familiar with Bill Kristol’s efforts to recruit an independent presidential candidate to challenge Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have told Bloomberg Politics that the person Kristol has in mind is David French -- whose name the editor of the Weekly Standard floated in the current issue of the magazine.

French is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the website of National Review, where French is a staff writer, he is a constitutional lawyer, a recipient of the Bronze Star, and an author of several books who lives in Columbia, Tenn., with his wife Nancy and three children."

Jerry Brown Backs Clinton
8 hours ago

California Gov. Jerry Brown endorsed Hillary Clinton today, calling her "the only path forward to win the presidency and stop the dangerous candidacy of Donald Trump." While praising Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign, Brown said "Clinton’s lead is insurmountable and Democrats have shown – by millions of votes – that they want her as their nominee. ... This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun."

Clinton Says Voters Still Hung Up on Gender
11 hours ago

In a New York Magazine profile, Hillary Clinton said she still encounters misogyny at her own events: “‘I really admire you, I really like you, I just don’t know if I can vote for a woman to be president.’ I mean, they come to my events and then they say that to me.”

Trump Vows Not to Change
11 hours ago
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
4 days ago

Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”