SOTU As Pointless (or worse)

shall 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 Constitution provides the ultimate basis on some sort of "state of the union" address, but it does not require the President to personally go in front of the Congress etc.  The President need not do it once a year or in person or any such thing. Jefferson stopped the practice of doing so in person and so it was for around a century.  Today's ceremony is fitting for the pomp and circumstance of modern media practice down to having it televised, commented on and a ready response (perhaps more than one) from the other political party.  That's fine and all really.

Chris Lavoie ‏@RadioGuyChris

The #SOTU has become a huge waste of time and resources. We already know what will be said. Tonight will just be political masturbation.

This is the producer from the Stephanie Miller Show, a liberal leaning radio show that is regular morning listening for me these days. It expresses a sentiment various people have.  Think is a tad bit overblown.  It really is not a "huge waste" -- it's not really a big deal.  Presidents already welcome from time to time a chance to make speeches, including basic bullet points on their mission and goals.  This provides a chance for the general public to focus on the matter once a year, including the other side having a chance to respond.  The common person is not as likely as me and some others to regularly check in on blogs or talk shows to worry about this sort of stuff.

The whole thing is clearly largely ceremonial and theater. So? That is true about many things, but there is still some value to it all.  Also, "we" here at times means "us in the media," and not the average person who might not be as familiar with the basics of the message and platform points.  In today's world, giving such speeches in public on television is also different from just releasing a transcript.  There is plenty of "political masturbation" anyway -- what specifically negative additional material is applied here?  I recently posted something about Justice Thomas not speaking at oral argument. Some demean the value of that too; I disagree it is of no use.

And, it is useful sometimes to have the how government (we can debate about the Supreme Court*) in one room together.  If you don't care about it, and honestly I really don't enough to actually watch the thing, just don't watch it. D.C. is full with ceremony and political masturbation. This actually has some connection to constitutional requirements.  It provides a certain bare minimum baseline where Congress and the President has to meet together once a year. We aren't talking Oscars level pomp and circumstance here.  I would just accept it for its modest possible value and not make a big deal about it one way or the other.

Besides, it's an easy way to fill a few hours of television. 

---

* The Supreme Court formally meeting the President has been a long tradition as has justices going to the State of the Union. Justice Breyer, e.g., takes these sort of things seriously. CJ Roberts has felt a need to go too. Some justices, including Justice Stevens, stayed way.

Some have recently made comments about how they feel uncomfortable because -- shocker -- the SOTU is somewhat political. Was it ever not somewhat political? These days with television and so on, it more so - the idea it is somehow surprising or something seems stupid. I think the justices can handle an hour or so per year blandly listening and not making funny faces when the POTUS makes comments they don't like. If not, don't come.  It is really not a big deal to me personally.