Every year, there is a State of the Union address given by the president to Congress. It didn't use to be that way; for the first 150 or so years of the USA, there was just a written report delivered by the White House to Congress. Now, however, we go through this annual festival of oratory. First we have a few days of speculation about what will be in the speech. Oh, the anticipation in the media! For the rest of the country, there's very little, if any, anticipation. Then we get to the entrance of the President into the chamber where the joint session of Congress is assembled. The clerk of the House announces the President's entrance and we get two minutes of standing ovation. (Will the Democrats applaud for President Trump?) Then the Vice President introduces the President. That's followed by yet another standing ovation. (Are you bored yet? I am, and the speech is still two days away.)
After all the opening pageantry, the President starts to speak. I've listened to more State of the Union speeches than I care to remember. Actually, the truth is that I really don't remember any of them. Were there memorable lines spoken by the president of the day? Not as far as I'm concerned. The problem with these speeches is that they are not focused. They are not restricted to one topic which can be fully expressed. Instead, they cover points in a sentence or two. It's a checklist approach.
Imagine the impact that this year's SOTU would have if President Trump were to open with "The state of the Union is good. I'm sending Congress a written report on the subject, but I want to focus tonight on just two aspects of this message: the economy and immigration." Trump could then go down the list of explaining just how good the economy has become and what he proposes to improve it moving forward. He could then spend twenty minutes with a big audience speaking directly to the American people about immigration. There would be no more translation by the media of what the President is saying. It would be direct communication. Imagine Trump telling the American people about his plans to legalize DACA people as well as about the need to end the green card diversity lottery and chain migration. Imagine Trump positioning the issue of the wall as something that will help cut off the flow of illegal drugs that flood our country and kill thousands of people a month. We could have an in-depth review of the issue. And, as I said above, the American people would hear it direct from Trump, not filtered through the media.
Imagine the Democrat response from representative Kennedy. He would either stick with his prepared text which would wander over all sorts of issues and miss Trump's point, or he would extemporize and address the economy and immigration. It would be nice for America to hear Trump's generous proposal for the DACA group which would then be followed by the Democrats denouncing that proposal as racist or mean-spirited as has been the case so far. People would get it, and the result wouldn't be a very good one for the Democrats.
Of course, this strategy won't be used. The SOTU is always the same. By next week, no one will remember what was said. And life will just move on.
After all the opening pageantry, the President starts to speak. I've listened to more State of the Union speeches than I care to remember. Actually, the truth is that I really don't remember any of them. Were there memorable lines spoken by the president of the day? Not as far as I'm concerned. The problem with these speeches is that they are not focused. They are not restricted to one topic which can be fully expressed. Instead, they cover points in a sentence or two. It's a checklist approach.
Imagine the impact that this year's SOTU would have if President Trump were to open with "The state of the Union is good. I'm sending Congress a written report on the subject, but I want to focus tonight on just two aspects of this message: the economy and immigration." Trump could then go down the list of explaining just how good the economy has become and what he proposes to improve it moving forward. He could then spend twenty minutes with a big audience speaking directly to the American people about immigration. There would be no more translation by the media of what the President is saying. It would be direct communication. Imagine Trump telling the American people about his plans to legalize DACA people as well as about the need to end the green card diversity lottery and chain migration. Imagine Trump positioning the issue of the wall as something that will help cut off the flow of illegal drugs that flood our country and kill thousands of people a month. We could have an in-depth review of the issue. And, as I said above, the American people would hear it direct from Trump, not filtered through the media.
Imagine the Democrat response from representative Kennedy. He would either stick with his prepared text which would wander over all sorts of issues and miss Trump's point, or he would extemporize and address the economy and immigration. It would be nice for America to hear Trump's generous proposal for the DACA group which would then be followed by the Democrats denouncing that proposal as racist or mean-spirited as has been the case so far. People would get it, and the result wouldn't be a very good one for the Democrats.
Of course, this strategy won't be used. The SOTU is always the same. By next week, no one will remember what was said. And life will just move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment