Under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution, the
president has a list of responsibilities, the very first being to “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.” The measure was largely borrowed, it appears, from the then New
York Constitution, in which it was “the duty of the governor to inform the
legislature, at every session, of the condition of the State, so far as may
respect his department; to recommend such matters to their consideration as
shall appear to him to concern its good government, welfare, and prosperity.”
Like the New York governor, the president was elected independently of the
legislature, had an extended term in office (three and four years,
respectively, in comparison with one-year terms in most of the states), and had
no term limits. In short, the presidency was seen as an office with a broad
institutional perspective capable of identifying issues to be addressed to the
benefit of the country.

But note the addressee in both cases was the legislature.
While the chief executive had a responsibility of suggesting a policy agenda, implicitly
he deferred to the legislature to determine how to or to not address those
suggestions with lawmaking. The president, in short, might lead, but he could
not command when it came to public policy.

The first address was given by George Washington on January
8, 1790, in the Senate chamber with members of both houses of Congress in
attendance. Although short in terms of words — a little over a 1000 — it still
covered plenty of ground, moving quickly from the need for a standing army, a
budget to pay American diplomats, creation of a uniform rule for
naturalization, standardization of weights and measures, establishment of post
offices, prospects for a national university, and measures to sustain public
credit. And it ended by noting his cabinet officers were ready to provide “such
papers and estimates” needed to facilitate Congress’ “consideration” on these
matters.

Despite Washington’s care in showing due deference to the
Congress, Thomas Jefferson decided that providing the address in person appeared
too monarchical and, instead, simply sent a written message to Congress. It
wasn’t until Woodrow Wilson on December 2, 1913, that the president once again orally
delivered the address before the Congress. The character of Wilson’s first
State of the Union speech, on its face, was not significantly different from
Washington’s — but it marked a departure. While referring to the two houses of
Congress as “honorable bodies” and noting with satisfaction the cooperation
between the two political branches, Wilson’s speech was 3500 words long, offering
a more detailed and assertive role for the president and his administration in
advising proper policy results. This was consonant with Wilson’s view that the
Constitution’s separation of powers required the popularly elected president to
be as much a prime minister as a chief executive. Popular mandates were what
kept the governing system from falling into unproductive stasis.

More recent addresses certainly haven’t gotten any shorter,
although it appears that in their first State of the Union efforts, Democrats
tend to go on considerably longer than Republicans: Clinton (7300 words), Bush
(4000), Obama (7300), and Trump (5200). This is probably not surprising given
Democrats typically have more ideas about what government should be doing than
the “less is more” GOP. But presidents from both parties now view the broader
public more than Congress as their addressee. Instead of engaging in dialogue
with the other branch of government, presidents hope to mobilize public opinion
in their speech, generating poll numbers that, they believe, might pressure
members to pass the various measures they are putting forward. In other words,
instead of talking to Congress, they are talking over their heads as often as
not.

It’s no surprise, then, that the members themselves
understand their role, in turn, to be cheerleaders or frowning faces depending
on their side of the aisle. The function of the president’s co-partisans is to
reinforce the view that the president has the popular wind at this back. The
last thing on their minds is how some proposal might be put through the
deliberative and sausage-making process of committee hearings and floor debate.

Instead of the State of the Union address being a singular constitutional moment, whose formal audience is the Congress, we get a follow-on act that is meant to dismiss to some degree or another almost instantaneously whatever the duly elected chief executive has to say. There is no due deference to the fact that one person has been selected as president and he or she is not just the head of a party but, in this instance, is doing his or her constitutional duty. The fact is, the State of the Union Address is in a sorry state.

The post The sorry state of the ‘State of the Union’ address appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.