If you’re an American, it’s likely that you watched the State of the Union Address this past Tuesday, or watched clips or read articles commenting about it. People will praise or condemn President Donald Trump’s remarks and behavior on the podium (there seems to be little in between). Regardless of our political views or our geographical location in this vast country, many of us sat down to collectively hear the President of the United States talk about the state of our union (and also, himself). It’s a strangely beautiful and rare thing, in an era when our national consciousness is fragmented by hundreds of different media channels and social media sites.

But while many were talking about whether they liked or disliked Trump’s speech, some were wondering: Should we even have this speech at all?

Jack Butler, from the Wall Street Journal, provides an intriguing and scathing critique of this tradition we take for granted. He argues that while the Constitution does order the president to give Congress information about the state of the union, the Founders of our country most likely intended it to be done in a written letter. This was the pattern until the 20th century, when presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt started giving oral addresses to Congress. Now, in our modern day, presidents such as Barack Obama, Joseph Biden and Trump have turned it into a partisan ego boost and a belligerent weapon to use against opponents in Congress, while their opponents lash back with unruly and uncivil manners. His hope is that a future president will abandon this tradition.

I think that Butler’s analysis and critique of the abuses, bloatedness, partisanship and even the boringness of the State of the Union Address are all sound. And I, for one, wouldn’t mind a president who chooses to submit a written letter to Congress instead of giving a speech. However, I think that Butler’s problems with the modern-day State of the Union Address are less about the fact that it is an oral speech and more so the way modern, partisan politics has corrupted it. I agree that the State of the Union, in recent years, has become a theatre of drama and boasting. Congress members heckle the president, while the president ignores all the problems of the country to boast about supposed victories. It’s both fun to watch (no wonder it gets such an audience), but it is also a sickening portrayal of the divisive rot present in our country today. 

But again, the problem is not that the State of the Union Address is delivered as a speech. Rather, the problem is in the times we live in. We live in a polarized time where everything is weaponized for one partisan group or another. It only makes sense that the State of the Union Address would be one such victim.

While speeches are definitely forms of propaganda, that isn’t always a bad thing. A good speech is often needed for the health and morale of our nation. During times of tragedy, war, economic uncertainty, international tensions or other crises, a good speech can not only address problems and admit faults, but also lay out plans of action and inspire energy to fulfill them. In a time when everyone has a heated opinion and can ramble on about it on their social media accounts, ordered speeches with good rhetoric and clear logic are more important than ever. That’s why it is unfortunate that speeches like the State of the Union Address have become the way they are. 

But I don’t think that we should be hoping for a future president to abolish this tradition. We should hope for a president who continues to make an address to Congress and the entire American people, while throwing out all the ugly parts. We need speeches that bring people of all ideological groups to sit and listen together. We need speeches that recognize American heroes, such as veteran Navy pilot Royce Williams, who was finally recognized for his brave actions during the Korean War. We need speeches where presidents are physically present and accountable before an assembly of elected representatives. We need speeches where policy is explained, failures are addressed and plans are declared. And yes, we need speeches with somewhat cheesy, patriotic one-liners that inspire us to continue the work of our predecessors in this messy and grand experiment called American democracy.

The current state of the State of the Union Address lacks the qualities that could make it a great tool for keeping the president accountable while inspiring the American public. Perhaps President Trump could have made it “great again,” but unfortunately, he lived up to the expectations of our current partisan realities. While he did honor great American heroes and displayed his magnificent ability to tell stories, his speech lumbered on (even breaking the record for the longest State of the Union Address) about how America was doing so great because of him. A better rhetor could have delivered a more tempered speech, in a shorter amount of time, that would have been more fitting for a public that has grown tired of Trump’s Administration.

Presidents often end their messages by appealing to God to bless their listeners and the United States. I hope America may receive the blessing of a leader who can confess faults, appeal for unity, deliver plans and uplift our nation with speeches filled with principles, common values, civil dialogue, clear logic, honesty and civic dignity.

Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Our National Conversation as a whole.

Image in this article was taken by C-Span.