When States of the Union Matter and When They Don’t

This one: Not so much.

President Harry S. Truman making his State of the Union speech.  (Photo by Francis Miller//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)
National Journal
Alex Seitz-Wald
Jan. 28, 2014, 6:29 a.m.

It’s State of the Uni­on time again, mean­ing wall-to-wall me­dia cov­er­age and all the trap­pings of im­port­ance. But with so much in­com­plete from Pres­id­ent Obama’s 2013 State of the Uni­on agenda (not to men­tion his earli­er ones), is it really worth all the pa­geantry and po­ten­tial se­cur­ity risk of lock­ing the en­tirety of the U.S. gov­ern­ment in a single room? Plenty of Amer­ic­ans would prob­ably be very happy to see the pres­id­ent go back to send­ing Con­gress a let­ter.

But the an­nu­al speeches are not en­tirely worth­less. Last year, 33.5 mil­lion Amer­ic­ans tuned in. That’s down from pre­vi­ous years (more than 52 mil­lion watched Obama’s joint ad­dress to Con­gress in 2009), but still way, way more than any nor­mal pres­id­en­tial speech would garner. Get­ting about 10 per­cent of the coun­try’s en­tire pop­u­la­tion to listen to what you have to say has to be worth something, right?

Jeff Cum­mins, a polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist at Cali­for­nia State Uni­versity (Fresno), in­vest­ig­ated just this ques­tion and found something that, once you hear it, is blind­ingly ob­vi­ous, but would nev­er know it from the way the me­dia cov­ers the speeches the same way year after year, go­ing all the way back to Lyn­don John­son in 1964.

Based on data from 1954 to 2000, Cum­mins found that there’s really two kinds of States of the Uni­on worth men­tion­ing: ones when the pres­id­ent’s party con­trols Con­gress, and ones where his party does not, like this year’s.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4682) }}

When the pres­id­ent’s party is in power in both cham­bers, the speech is a pretty good road map for what will hap­pen in Con­gress the next year. But when the pres­id­ent’s party does not con­trol Con­gress, the speech doesn’t tell you much, and that’s es­pe­cially true when par­tis­an­ship levels are high, as they are now.

“I still think it’s the most im­port­ant speech of the year, and lays out the pres­id­ent’s pri­or­it­ies for the year,” says Cum­mins. “But I’m al­ways kind of amazed how the me­dia harp on the pres­id­ent not get­ting any­thing done. Of course he’s not get­ting any­thing done: He doesn’t have a friendly Con­gress.”

Non­ethe­less, law­makers are not the pres­id­ent’s only audi­ence. He al­ways wants to sway pub­lic opin­ion and in­flu­ence the lar­ger de­bate. Here, the story is a little less hope­less for Obama.

The aca­dem­ic re­search sug­gests that pres­id­ents can’t really change the pub­lic’s mind on any giv­en is­sue, but they can at least (maybe) put an is­sue on the map by rais­ing its sa­li­ence in peoples’ minds.

The im­port­ance of pres­id­en­tial speeches in gen­er­al is prob­ably vastly over­rated, as polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist George Ed­wards ar­gues in his clas­sic book on the lim­its of the bully pul­pit. And that’s even more true now that tele­vi­sion audi­ences are de­clin­ing, thanks to com­pet­ing me­dia op­tions.

“Time and again, I would speak on tele­vi­sion, to a joint ses­sion of Con­gress,” Ron­ald Re­agan once said of his push to aid the Con­tra rebels. “But the polls usu­ally found that large num­bers of Amer­ic­ans cared little or not at all about what happened in Cent­ral Amer­ica “¦ and, among those who did care, too few cared “¦ to ap­ply the kind of pres­sure I needed on Con­gress.”

Even one of the most cited ex­amples of the power of a good speech, an ap­par­ent 10-point bump in Bill Clin­ton’s ap­prov­al rat­ing after his 1993 health care speech, turns out to be the ar­ti­fact of a single out­lier poll.

Non­ethe­less, pres­id­ents can at least bring is­sues to the fore, as Prin­ceton’s Brandice Canes-Wrone notes, even though it’s hard to tell who’s lead­ing whom, since they tend to fo­cus big speeches on is­sues that are already pop­u­lar.

This agenda-set­ting power would be valu­able to Obama on any is­sue, but es­pe­cially on in­come in­equal­ity, the fo­cus of Tues­day night’s speech.

If in­come in­equal­ity were like, say, im­mig­ra­tion, where both parties have com­pet­ing policy solu­tions, then be­ing able to win over voters might be more im­port­ant than merely rais­ing the top­ic. But that’s not really the case. Demo­crats want to make ad­dress­ing in­equal­ity a top pri­or­ity, and to use the power of the gov­ern­ment here ag­gress­ively, while Re­pub­lic­ans are more con­cerned with ad­dress­ing in­equal­ity by get­ting the gov­ern­ment out of the way in places like pub­lic edu­ca­tion and pro­mot­ing self-ad­vance­ment.

So, if the pres­id­ent can do noth­ing more than raise in­come in­equal­ity in the pub­lic con­scious­ness, that’s a win for him.

Still, it’s a pretty mod­est one. And with one cham­ber of Con­gress firmly in con­trol of hy­per-par­tis­an Re­pub­lic­ans, don’t ex­pect much of what Obama pro­poses to be­come law any­way.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4684) }}

What We're Following See More »
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
3 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.”

UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
4 days ago

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
4 days ago

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
4 days ago
California: It’s Not Over Yet
4 days ago

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.