Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Put the State of the Union address out of its misery
Put the State of the Union address out of its misery
Apr 20, 2025 4:56 PM

It’s time to state the obvious: The State of the Union address is doing more harm than good, making promises it can’t keep and further eroding citizens’ opinion of government. Who’ll be the first brave POTUS to end the SOTU?

Read More…

In the fable of “The Bell and the Cat,” a group of mice discuss how best to protect themselves from a rapacious, predatory cat who has been hunting them down. One mouse suggests they put a bell on the cat so they’ll know when the cat is approaching. All the mice agree this is a good idea. But there isn’t a single mouse who wants to be the one charged with putting the bell on the cat.

It’s in every mouse’s interest to put the bell on the cat, but it’s not in the interest of any individual mouse to be the one actually to do the job.

Similarly, it’s in the interest of the modern American presidency, not to mention the American nation, to end the in-person delivery of the State of the Union. But it’s not clearly in any individual president’s interest to be the one who pulls the plug.

For more than 100 years, the presidential obligation to update Congress on the state of the union came mostly in the form of a letter. But as is true of so many awful things in American political history, it’s President Woodrow Wilson who’s responsible for the current spectacle of the in-person address.

Once upon a time, political soothsayers would speculate about how big a bump in public opinion the president would receive from a successful State of the Union. Presidents have viewed the speech as a way to reframe and reboot their flagging presidencies. Neither of these things have been true for years now.

Today the State of the Union exists mostly as a vehicle for the president of the United States to lie to the American people and set himself up for future failures.

Now, all politicians lie. President George H. W. Bush asked us to read his lips that there would be “no new taxes” before he, in fact, raised taxes. President Barack Obama told us that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan” before millions of Americans saw their healthcare plans canceled after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Every president, indeed every politician, tells these kinds of lies. Most of them are the monplace political spin that is part and parcel of politics and may not stand out to us in our collective memory as much as these two famous examples. But the State of the Union now invites a more harmful form of lying that is helping to erode Americans’ faith in our political institutions: lying about what can actually be plished in our system of governance.

Since at least the time of Bill Clinton’s presidency, the State of the Union has included a laundry list of policy priorities, pletely disconnected from political reality. This year, President Biden rattled off ponents of his Build Back Better agenda, rebranded as “building a better America.” Set aside for a moment that it is Congress, not the president, who initiates legislation and that it shouldn’t matter all that much what any given president wants Congress to do. The biggest problem with these lists is that they further a trend of telling the American people that politicians can plish things they simply cannot.

In 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz led a shutdown of the government, promising it would result in President Obama’s approving the defunding of his signature healthcare legislation. That was never going to happen. While campaigning for president, then-Sen. Kamala Harris promised that “on day one” she’d take executive action on gun control that would clearly be illegal. That was never going to happen either.

Politicians keep promising the American people that all their myriad problems can be solved just by voting for them. Then, when those problems linger, the American people toss out those politicians who lied to them in favor of another group making different lies.

The result of this perverse two-step has been a steep decline in Americans’ faith in our own institutions of politics and government. So much so as to render the one line every president delivers in the State of the Union address—“The state of our union is strong”—also a lie.

The American presidency is one of the world’s most exclusive clubs. Only 45 men have served in that role in American history. Only six of those men, including the current president, Joe Biden, are alive at this moment. The group of people who could potentially e president in the near future is larger—and perhaps after the unlikely election of Donald Trump in 2016 even larger than we might think—but it’s still not an enormous group of people.

Yet even a group that small and that exclusive can suffer from a collective action problem. The president who finallydecides to be the one to put the bell on the cat and put the State of the Union out of its misery will have done our nation a great favor.

This article originally appeared in The Detroit News on March 11, 2022

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Study: How Government Regulations Help or Hinder Cities
The revitalization of cities has e a significant focus among today’s Christians, with many flocking to urban centers filled with lofty goals and aspirations for change and transformation. Last summer, James K.A. Smith expressed concern that such efforts may be overly romanticizing certain features (community!) to the detriment of others (government), concluding that “farmer’s market’s won’t rescue the city” but “good government will.” Chris Horst and I followed up to this with yet another qualifier, arguing that while both gardens...
Bob Woodson and ‘The Poverty Industry’
The Center for Neighborhood Enterprise in Washington is led by Robert Woodson who founded it in 1981 to help neighborhoods where what he calls “the poverty industry” doesn’t seem to help much. He’s torqued that many fellow African Americans have abandoned their poor brothers except to exploit them noting that 70 cents of every welfare dollar goes to social workers, counselors and others. His organization has trained 2,500 field workers in 39 states. He believes that instead of more government...
4 Lessons We Can Learn from a McDonald’s Owner
You’ve probably never heard of Tony Castillo. Even if you live in West Michigan and have eaten at one of his three McDonald’s franchises you probably don’t recognize the name. But an inspiring profile of Castillo by MLive provides a number of lessons about economics and business that everyone should learn from this entrepreneur. Lesson #1: To be a successful business owner you should care about your stakeholders (customers, employees, suppliers, etc.) Ask Tony Castillo what he loves about owning...
Obamacare: Less Choices, Fewer Doctors And You’re Gonna Like It
We Americans like choices. Go to any large grocery store and stand in awe at the vast array of cereals: everything from regular old oatmeal to some sort of toasted rainbow sprinkles of joy. The market economy is built upon choice: not only does the consumer have a choice in what she wants, she can stay away from things she doesn’t want, like bad service or poorly prepared food. Yes, we like choices. Obamacare is built on fewer choices, however....
7 Figures: The Shifting Religious Identity of Latinos in the U.S.
Religious polarization is taking place in the munity, with the shrinking majority of Hispanic Catholics holding the middle ground between two growing groups (evangelical Protestants and the unaffiliated) that are at opposite ends of the U.S. religious spectrum, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. Here are seven figures you should know from that report: 1. Because of the growing Hispanic population, a day e when a majority of Catholics in the United States will be Hispanic,...
Tolkien, Hobbits, Hippies and War
Jay Richards and I have an Ignatius Press book on mitment to ing out soon, so we’ve been following developments in the Hobbit film trilogy more closely than we might otherwise. A recent development is director Peter Jackson announcing a subtitle change to the third film—from There and Back Again, to Battle of the Five Armies. That’s maybe a bit narrow for a novel that’s also about food, fellowship and song, but I think it’d be going too far to...
Want To Change A Nation? Give A Girl A Book
I don’t know any terrorists, but they seem to be very fearful people. They are afraid of new ideas, other religions, air strikes, and bathing. Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, says that what terrorists are really afraid of are educated women. Kristof points out that the Boko Haram did not choose to bomb a church or go after politicians. They targeted a girls’ school. The biggest threat to a terrorist is a woman who can read, write, work,...
Kishore Jayabalan: ‘Say “No” to Government Expansion’
Kishore Jayabalan, director of the Istituto Acton in Rome, recently wrote an article at Aleteia, titled ‘Freedom, Truth, & State Power: The Case for Religious and Economic Freedom.’ He begins his piece with a statement Gerald R. Ford made soon after ing president: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” Jayabalan continues: Trust in our political leaders increased around the time of the September 11,...
Samuel Gregg: Indivisibility Of Religious Liberty, Economic Freedom
Sam Gregg, Acton’s director of research, makes the case that limiting religious liberty also infringes upon economic growth in The American Spectator. Gregg uses history to illustrate the point. Unjust restrictions on religious liberty e in the form of limiting the ability of members of particular faiths to participate fully in public life. Catholics in the England of Elizabeth I and James I, for instance, were gradually stripped of most of their civil and political rights because of their refusal...
Should We Ban Farm Tractors to Save Jobs?
America could have saved more jobs if, prior to the Industrial Revolution, politicians had banned the use of tractors. But that would have made everyone (especially those of us living in 2014) much worse off. Many Americans understand this point and yet still believe that when workers lose their jobs, we automatically e worse off. Economist Bryan Caplan explains the problem with this ‘make-work’ bias, and why we are better off because of 19th century workers who lost their farm...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved