The original article can be found at The Graphic
With another new year comes another run-of-the-mill State of the Union address from our commander in chief.
As required by the U.S. Constitution, our fearless leader shall “from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
The idea, like many in our country’s early practices, borrows from some sort of traditional practice in the United Kingdom — specifically, it is reminiscent of the monarch’s “Speech to the Throne” given during the State Opening of Parliament.
But times change, and as the monarch has become a mere figurehead in the politics of England, so has the State of the Union become a vestige of the U.S. political system.
The hour-plus parades of pomp and circumstance, vagaries, good and evil terms, insane levels of political spin, mechanized chicanery and bogus, all-too-frequent standing ovations are old and tired. The televised address tells viewers more about the state of the Capitol’s chambers and who’s got a manly handshake than about the actual state of real problems and the specific solutions the government needs to address.
The night begins with glad-handing both sides of the aisle and false pledges of “bipartisan” appeal. It only takes a few minutes for the subtle potshots, pathetic smirks, overzealous cheering, catcalls and numerous interruptions of partial applause to appear, to show it was a night for political pandering, not an actual — or even sincere — call to action.
The literal importance of this speech is nowhere to be found in the hallowed halls of the Capitol. But the VIPs, special guests, hordes of Capitol Police and Secret Service, media honchos and people with the right amount of money are everywhere.
How democratic that, aside from being a Super Bowl champion or a war hero, it is pretty much impossible for an ordinary citizen to attend this speech. Watching the speech with a few friends, we wondered what the chamber would really be like if the galleries above were filled on a first-come, first-serve basis. Surely there would be some arrests, protests and interruptions (i.e. good television).
It would be like ‘question time’ at the House of Commons — the weekly, policy-laden tongue-lashing the Prime Minister receives at the Houses of Parliament in London.
Then it hit me. Why doesn’t our president face question time? Why aren’t our executives held accountable in the same ways that leaders are in other countries under different, yet equally (or arguably more) democratic systems than ours? Somehow, precedent doesn’t seem like a good enough answer.
No, it’s high time for the president to have to face the crowd … personally. No more free passes. No more overlord-like control by the Executive Branch, laughing at the inabilities of Congress to check its power. This weekly report to Congress will greatly improve checks and balances and actually hold the Executive Branch accountable (because nobody can seem to check their power right now).
Seeing Tony Blair get grilled on a weekly basis while in the London program was rewarding — an experience that is surely grounding, knowing that you can’t burn too many bridges and must make progress on issues, lest you get humiliated by hundreds of scary, bad-teethed, old British men pointing and screaming at you in the worst controlled chaos you’ve ever seen.
Of course, the U.S. version of “question time” doesn’t have to be so primal and bizarre. It could be “Americanized” into more gentlemanly methods, like instituting a “one person speaks at a time” rule.
But the ability to hiss and boo when the president doesn’t give an adequate answer is essential, our right as Americans.
And surely, if “question time” was instituted in the House, CSPAN’s ratings would go through the roof — thus, more attention paid to politics. Isn’t this what America really needs?
Submitted 01-31-2008
No comments:
Post a Comment