As 8 p.m. Central time rolled around this past week, the President of the United States began his 1-hour and 6 minute long speech to the Congress on the "State of the Union". Sadly, like many other "State of the Union" addresses, I had trouble collecting excitement to watch it. It is not because I dislike the current or past Presidents' policies, views or initiatives. It is because, unfortunately, something that started out as an update to Congress has become a parade of positioning with subsequent counterpointing following shortly thereafter.
As an American citizen, I have trouble watching this political circus and struggle to relate to the grandiose plans that are often unveiled that are intended to relieve debt, create jobs, make us independent of foreign oil and create a sustainable energy plan. They sound good, but often lack the detail that satisfies my curious personality. How will that get done? Where will the money come from? What are the ramifications if we do that?
So as you can tell, I have difficulty buying into any message that I don't understand or for which I can't find supporting details. For people like me, the "State of the Union" speech needs to have more meat in it. And for this reason, I'd like to propose an idea that would get the "State of the Union" on track as the powerful, substantive message to Congress:
Retool the "State of the Union" for the benefit of Congress and the American people.
But to do so, we must first understand one basic concept of the "State of the Union" address:
The President Isn't Talking to Us
Let's back up a moment and revisit the intent of the "State of the Union" address. Article II, Section 3 of the “Constitution of the United States” states that:
"[the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
Notice the audience -- Congress. Nowhere in this Constitutional statement does it say that the State of the Union's audience is the average American voter.
But in 1947, President Truman possibly changed the "State of the Union" address forever by broadcasting the address on TV, exposing thousands of households at the time to what the President was saying to Congress. The distance of time and press would have previously made the conversation between the President and Congress a seemingly more intimate conversation within the joint session of Congress. But with the introduction of the TV broadcast of the speech, the American public was invited to take a seat on the floor of the House of Representatives to hear what the President had to say.
But... the President still wasn't speaking to the American public. And herein lies the mess that this fork in the road has led us to.
When George Washington spoke to his joint session of Congress on January 8th, 1790, he spoke an estimated 4 to 7 minutes. To the House of Representatives, he directed but a single paragraph. Following this paragraph, he addressed both the House and Senate. In those paragraphs, he essentially said, "keep on keepin' on -- you're doing good stuff" and I'm going to have some bills/issues sent your way for consideration.
Before these two paragraphs, he listed the items of priority for them and for us as a country going forward that he felt were important. It was a vision of where we should be placing importance. It was not filled with budget numbers and specifics nor did anyone likely expect it to. It was a way to say "here's what I feel is important in strategy -- let's find a way to work toward this vision".
The Modern-Day "State of the Union" Address
Our expectations of the "State of the Union" address have risen to heights that are, quite frankly, lofty and outrageous. Because we're privy to a virtual seat on the House floor, we now seem to think that there should be a detailed plan presented in the immediate sentences following any initiative unveiled. Critics in the media will talk about the "lack of substance" or "lack of details" of Plan XYZ presented.
But what we're failing to remember is that the "State of the Union" speech is not about the voter. It's about an opportunity for the executive branch of government to address the legislative -- those who represent us. We're sitting in on a business strategy meeting -- one in which the President can discuss the past year and lay out objectives going forward. As such, it should also be expected that, while televised and webcasted live, the President should treat his annual address to Congress as though the viewers at home do not exist. Consider the amount of rhetoric, grandstanding and theatrics that might not take place if cameras were not rolling. How many stops for applause and standing ovations might be eliminated? How much of the "State of the Union" is about partisan positioning versus true communication with Congress?
If you have trouble with that last statement, consider that Congress receives a copy of the President's address in advance of the actual speech. With that fact in mind, is there really even a point in Congress showing up to listen? It's not the message anymore, but the jockeying for power surrounding the message that has taken center stage.
So, in reality, not only has the "State of the Union" moved away from what was most likely its true intent, but is now a misunderstood moment of Presidential communication whose objective has become cloudy over time. How can we get it back on track? How do we find a happy medium whereby Congress is allowed to hear from the President in a setting that more resembles a productive business meeting, yet we as American voters are allowed to hear the President's plans for the country?
We need a form of "State of the Union" for the American people and I'm proposing something new and different that will take effort for both us as voters and for the U.S. Government as a huge, intricate machine. Our "State of the Union" would be much less like a speech and more like a discussion and explanation of where we came from over the past year and where we need to go.
Let's Envision a "People's Address Initiative".
Idea #1: The People’s Address Should Be a Day Long (at Least)
I have been in staff meetings for groups of 8-10 that can last 3 to 4 hours easily. We can't expect the President's "State of the Union" address to cover everything about the nation in an address to us in the kind of detail that will leave us fulfilled. If we're going to complain about the President not giving us substance, then we as voters need to commit some time to understanding what's going on with the finances and strategy of our government. And hey, since no one really knows what President's Day is really about anyway and a good bit of the American population is already off from work, let's use that day to do this thing. Make use of a good day off celebrating our Presidents and reinvest this time back into the country.
Idea #2: Let the President Be Our Host
The President should "host" the event, but the President should not be the only one speaking during the People's Roundtable. He would moderate and facilitate as members of the cabinet and Federal offices presented. Cycle through the head of the Office of Management and Budget, IRS and so on Key players in the finances of our nation should be involved in presenting.
Idea #3: Make It Visual
Presentations could be infographics, pie charts, or whatever visual aids needed to be involved. Maybe the government could hire a top-notch infographics and presentation firm to keep us from falling asleep. Show it to me visually. Use Muppets or whatever it took to keep us engaged. Remember Ross Perot's graphs and charts that he bought time to show us? Consider the strategy that goes into making a Superbowl commercial retain our attention. If the government devoted that kind of effort into making us sit still throughout this event, we'd be much better educated at the end of the day.
Idea #4: Show How Money Flows In and Out
The basic structure should include income, expenses and objectives -- maybe one in the morning, one in the afternoon and the latter as more of a "fireside/where-do-we-go-from-here" session to wrap up the day.. Now, I know that our Federal spending and revenue isn't simple, but at least throw us a bone and give it a shot. Be sure to provide comparisons to last year and maybe comment about why there's a difference if there is one. This is a basic, fundamental concept of sharing finances with someone to whom you have to ultimately answer.
Idea #5: Provide Supporting Material Online
There will surely be questions that will not get answered in the allotted time period and that's to be expected with information of this depth and detail. But gives us a place to go online that clearly correlates the presentations with additional data.
Idea #6: Create an Opportunity for Conversation Both During and After
For each department presenting, assign a "lieutenant" or two from that organization to be present in a social media war room during the event to answer questions about that session. Dialogue, transparency and the opportunity to educate should be welcomed.
These are but a few ideas, but I can't help but think that we put way more effort and brainpower into that which doesn’t impact us the way that the operation of our government does. While there is a need to for entertainment and down-time for us as a society, we most likely spend way too many hours consuming information that is of no real value in the long term. We need to give a damn again and be willing to be patient and offer a vague attempt to understand just what's happening in the U.S. Government.
We've let the "State of the Union" address become unfulfilling to us as American citizens and I feel that it has lost its true meaning and intent. Congress needs one address. We need another, free of the pomp and formality of a "State of the Union" speech. We want to hear from you, Mr. President, but help us understand what the nation's issues and objectives are in a format that allows us to absorb, digest and interact.
In the closing sentence of his wartime 1944 "State of the Union" address to Congress, President Franklin Roosevelt stated:
"Each and every one of us has a solemn obligation under God to serve this Nation in its most critical hour—to keep this Nation great -- to make this Nation greater in a better world."
This nation and its history of triumph, determination and perseverance deserves our attention. Congress needs to hear from the executive branch of government. The American public needs to better understand the issues in greater-than-sound-bite form.
It's time we re-examine the President's communication channel strategy. I want to listen to your "State of the Union", Mr. President. I'm still trying to determine, however, if I'm really supposed to be.
