Thomas Jefferson Was Right

Once again our nation has been subjected to the political kabuki theater that we call the State of the Union.  And once again, I wonder why the nation allows itself to be subjected to such a pointless pep rally without even the promise of a sock hop in the gym afterwards.

This nonsense is not really necessary.  Article II, Section 3 of our constitution says that "He [the president] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

George Washington interpreted this as a speech, following a custom that had long been in practice in England, the annual "Speech From the Throne" to the assembled houses of Parliament.  Our founding fathers were well aware of the annual custom where a bloated, inbred monarch would read a prepared speech (traditionally with a German accent) to a Parliament who were just whiling away the time until the pubs opened.  (If you are interested in such trivia, I recommend reading the missive from George III in 1775.  He was outraged at the cheeky Americans who were in desperate need of chastising.   He predicted the revolt would fold as soon as the rebels felt "a smart blow.")

This presidential version of performance art upset Jefferson, who believed the Federalist Party of Washington and Adams was taking on too much of the trappings of a monarchy.  A deep believer in a democracy steered by the wisdom of an independent populace, Jefferson went out of his way as president to strip the office of all such grandeur.  President Jefferson frequently met guests personally at the White House front door dressed in his robe and slippers.  This deliberate act was to emphasize his belief that politicians--in particular the president--should always be seen as a man of the people.

Jefferson wanted to distance his messages to Congress from the royal recommendations (read that as "demands") of a monarch, so he sent written messages to Congress that were read aloud by a clerk.  You get the general impression that if Jefferson could have mailed the letter to Congress with postage due, he would have.

Every president from Jefferson through Taft followed his lead and sent only written messages to Congress.  It was Woodrow Wilson who broke tradition and delivered a speech to Congress.  Wilson probably wanted Congress to pay attention to his message, since it had been the practice in Congress for years for the assembled legislators to bolt for the cloakroom as soon as the clerk began reading the president's letter.

After Wilson, for the next sixty-odd years, presidents frequently--but not always--delivered speeches before a joint session of Congress.  The last president to send a written message was Jimmy Carter (evidently in the belief that the country had suffered enough).  Since then, no president has been merciful enough to spare the country the burden of yet another political speech.  And the speeches have been generally recognized by political pundits as fairly useless.  And boring.

The entire spectacle has gotten silly.  Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee camps out in the capitol with a pup tent two days early so she can get a seat on the aisle and fawn over the President like a $10 hooker in a bar at closing time.  And that was how she acted when Bush was president.  Now that Obama is president, the Secret Service is thinking about using a taser on her.

And are we really supposed to feel secure in the knowledge that a single member of the cabinet is selected to stay away from the capitol during the speech, so that, if some kind of catastrophe wipes out all of the administration, our government will continue?  Do we really want the Secretary of Urban Bed Wetting--a member of the cabinet so unpopular that he couldn't even get invited to the State of the Union speech--to singlehandedly rebuild the entire national government?

And lastly, do we have to continue the practice of the president's inviting guests that he can introduce during his speech?  To Washington insiders, these guests are referred to as "Lenny Skutniks."  President Reagan began the practice in 1982, when he invited Mr. Skutnik to the speech after his heroic actions following a plane crash.  I have no objections to inviting civilians, but the practice of inviting members of our military has become somewhat cloying.  These men and women deserve our thanks and respect--something that does not seem consistent with treating them as props in a presidential version of "show-and-tell."

Jefferson was right: we should return to the days when the President's letter is read by a clerk while all of Congress hides in the cloak room.