Author: Jill Goatcher
Straying from the usual dinner and a movie, date night got a makeover this past Tuesday. The annual State of the Union address given by the president, outlining the administration’s goals for the nation, had a very amicable feel this year. In the wake of the tragic shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several of her constituents three weeks ago, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall proposed breaking the traditionally partisan congressional seating chart.
Democrats and Republicans sat with a “date” from the opposite party during the address instead of sitting separately from their political foes. This was meant to foster a collegial environment amongst legislators despite the hyperpartisanship experienced during the past decade in Washington. Unfortunately, this event has become a symbol and has no significant influence upon the complex affairs of U.S. politics. Therefore, the gesture of bipartisanship holds no real promise and is completely overridden by the political polarity that the State of the Union induces.
State of the Union addresses range in content and style from lengthy speeches full of superfluous prose to important policy discussions that outline goals for the coming congressional term. George Washington began the ritual of the State of the Union address in 1780, thinking it would be nice to check in with congress “from time to time.”
The annual address to congress has become a tradition, first reaching the public through print, then radio, television, and now live Internet streaming. With these new technological advances have come pollsters and bloggers who can provide live play-by-play confusion regarding the speaker’s message. These people have muddied the waters surrounding the speech with overtly biased commentary streaming simultaneously. Instead of listening to what the president has to say and forming individual opinions, people can go online during the address and see Glenn Beck’s or Rachel Maddow’s stances on the speech. The proliferation of blogging and other media outlets furthers partisan agendas that contradict Congress’ display of bipartisanship last Tuesday.
As I listened to the State of the Union address, I forgot about the polarization of our country—one that has led to protests, an overturned election, and political actions and rhetoric that some think led to the shooting of Giffords. This heated political discourse has become commonplace in our government, and it seems that no compromise can be found to this never-ending list of issues. Seeing political enemies sitting together and hearing President Obama’s words made me feel that his administration has a plan, however vague it may be, and that our political quarrels will work themselves out. I was instilled with the fantasy of political enemies uniting under the banner of the American flag once again.
It seems the purpose of the State of the Union this year was to provide a sense of calm within the storm of politics. Obama’s objective mainly was to give Congress and the American people hope that somewhere, at the end of the tunnel, bipartisanship can be possible in this divided government and progress will be made. Polls from CBS showed that those who watched the State of the Union felt more optimistic about Obama’s policies than they had before the address. Some of Obama’s plans, including those for job creation, increased in approval from 53 percent to 82 percent. These numbers show that all the American people needed was an explanation of the policies, and that the controversy to date has stemmed mostly from misunderstandings.
The State of the Union, while a well-needed break from political polarity, does not demonstrate any substantial promise from our political leaders. Instead of dancing around the issues with an air of bipartisanship, our leaders need to set a true example, one of policy-making and compromise. While the State of the Union might put our minds at ease, what really matters is not the show, but the people behind it. According to Montopoll, Speaker of the House John Boehner’s staff was sending statements to reporters, claiming that Obama’s words held no weight. We must remember the reality of American politics: Democrats and Republicans hold separate ideologies and supporters, with an election system based on corporate donations and fraught with lobbyists. Our representatives simply created one night of bipartisan fantasy, but we all know that one night of sharing an armrest will not change a thing.
Jill Goatcher is an undeclared first year. She can be reached at goatcher@oxy.edu
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
