The State of the Disunion
Do I detect a disturbance in the force?
The annual presidential State of the Union address has become a pomp-and-circumstance event. It wasn’t always. The tradition of a presidential Annual Message goes back to George Washington in 1790, but after both he and his successor, John Adams, gave their addresses in person, Thomas Jefferson decided not to, believing that such an appearance risked elevating the presidency to the status of a quasi-monarchy. Until 1913, presidents simply sent Congress a report. Then, Woodrow Wilson decided that he could more effectively rally the country’s support for his legislative agenda by speaking to Congress in person. And that has been the tradition ever since. In 1947, Harry Truman became the first president to have his address televised.
Judging from the past few decades, Jefferson’s concern seems entirely validated. The theater of the State of the Union does, in fact, make it seem as if a monarch is entering the House chamber, the entire government genuflecting at the altar of his power. (That is the case even when half the audience sits in sullen silence.) All that attention on the president reinforces the notion that the executive branch lords over all others.
Certainly, in terms of fame — or infamy — the presidency today looms larger than the other two branches of government. And most of us view an imperial presidency as a threat to be reckoned with: Republicans felt that way in the Obama and Biden years, just as Democrats have felt it about Bush and Trump. Whatever one might say about the second season of The Trump Show, it did not invent overweening presidential prerogative, even as it goes further than any previous administration to exploit it.
The most recent State of the Union address changed no minds, altered no opinions, moved no policy needles, offered no compromises, and presented no solutions. Concerns about affordability will not be allayed. Dismay over immigration policy will not dissipate. Questions about foreign interventions have not been answered.
In that sense, then, it was truly theater, sound and fury signifying not all that much, pomp without circumstance.
Though it may not be widely apparent yet, some of us are discerning a vibe shift, a disturbance in the force, a certain je ne sais quoi that words from the White House no longer result in actions taken, or at least not in actions taken successfully. In recent months, the federal government has backed down in Minneapolis, been forced to restore illegally withheld funding to the Gateway Tunnel project, released a Columbia University student within hours of her being taken by ICE without a legitimate warrant and after the officers misrepresented themselves, had its signature tariff policy rejected by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, it continues to face numerous contempt charges, and almost all of its attempted cuts to science research have been quietly restored.
Yes, those attempts at executive over-reach should not have happened in the first place, but the American presidents who early on rejected in-person State of the Union addresses knew full well that their country was not immune to the same lures of power and control that have plagued governments and societies from time immemorial. A system of checks and balances is based on the full awareness that checks and balances are necessary because people and power are a volatile, often destructive mix.
This administration will continue to push and push and push the boundaries of what it can do. It will likely attempt to nationalize control of midterm elections by executive fiat, which will lead to yet another barrage of challenges, mostly through the courts but also by state governments and maybe even Congress. And that will be just the latest example of how the power of the administration is being checked — not as quickly as it tries to expand it, but checked, nonetheless.
Ours is an imperfect system in a chaotic time, but it is, for now, holding. There will be more tumultuous times ahead, but if I were a betting man, I’d head to one of the many new predictions market and wager on the system bending not breaking, on power being reigned in rather than given free hand. That’s the emerging story, and it is gathering momentum.
Well said.
The Orange Menace has now launched a war for the "regime change" in Iran another euphemism for blood and destruction. He will fail to do so just like his previous failure when he said the nuclear program in Iran was finished, of course he lied about that. The only regime change we need is the one in the USA, given the absolute mendacity and incompetence of this administration.