It's not that great minds think alike. You'll find most times that the opposite is the case. Only small minds think alike all the time.
But it is with great pleasure--one could almost say it was wholly a pleasure--to read David Jolliffe's letter to the editor in Tuesday's paper. We take satisfaction in knowing its faithful author is numbered among the friends of the paper. Or at least he's one of its readers. (It's hard to make friends in this business.)
David Jolliffe of Fayetteville, Ark., writes about the president's speech last week. Our correspondent wants all presidential addresses to Congress, including the presidential State of the Union addresses, to start thusly:
"We're all busy people, and it's late at night. Please hold any and all applause until the end of the speech. This isn't a high school pep rally. It's an occasion to ponder what serious problems we're facing and how we might address them. So, kindly just listen and think. We'll be out of here much earlier if we drop the stand-and-applaud or sit-and-scowl charade."
That's telling 'em! And not only them, but us. For there is a whole beat in journalism required to report on the SOTU addresses--and to detail who cheers what and when. And whether the Democrats stand and cheer Topic Nine, or whether the Republicans sit and yawn during the 10 minutes of discussion on Topic Fifteen. And whether one U.S. representative standing up to cheer--alone among his party--during Topic Thirty (his pet subject matter) will be somehow disciplined by party bosses later.
Television cameras are strategically located all around the hall to capture representatives smiling, frowning, or working a crossword. It's the American version of Kremlinology, in which the world noted the positions at the reviewing stands for officials during Red Army parades, to note who was in, or out, of favor in the old, unlamented Soviet Union.But we'd go one step further than our letter writer: We'd get rid of the State of the Union speech altogether.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says the president of the United States has to give this speech. Or any speech. Article II, Section III of the Constitution says the president "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 ... ."
But nothing in our founding document says the country has to waste an hour and a half one Tuesday night a year for this partisan nonsense.
Woodrow Wilson, among his other sins, started this tradition of giving the State of the Union as a speech. For most of the nation's history, this wasn't even a thing. Presidents could write to Congress. And still could. Only if they would.
But these speeches--and not just the SOTU, but joint congressional speeches like the one last week--have turned into a free advertisement for the president. And for the opposition, too. Not only is much made about which lines get applause and which lines don't, but there is a rebuttal that usually wastes another 10-15 minutes.
You'd think there is enough of Washington, D.C., on television already. If you're not getting enough, you're not looking hard enough. There are any number of channels that can give you a shovel-full of D.C. politics--along with suggestions about how you should think about it all. As somebody once noted, if the electricity is on, Washington is on. It's turned into one big show.
And the congressional addresses are the most boring of them all. What was the last memorable line from one of these? Perhaps in 1996 when a president named Clinton said the era of big government is over? (Boy, was he wrong.) Or maybe it was George W. Bush's naming the Axis of Evil shortly after 9/11.
Either way, it's been decades since any president has said something that was stirring. Even the most famous comment during an Obama SOTU address wasn't made by the president, but by a congressman who heckled him.
For years, we've suggested a way around this reality show: Skip the State of the Union address/speech/advertisement, and go back to presidents issuing a statement to Congress from time to time, as the founders suggested. We'd call that a conservative design.
Any candidate suggesting such a thing in the future would benefit in any number of ways--not only in polls from weary Americans, but from editorial endorsements. And as an Extra Added Bonus, as the cereal boxes used to say, the viewing public could get better programming, more intelligent writing, sharper scripts and superior acting on another TV program.
Like "Finding Bigfoot."