Article II, Sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution
"The President 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."
Pretty vague, huh?
Tuesday, January 12th, 2016, President Barack Obama will give his seventh and final State of the Union Address (his speech in 2009, given in the first month of his presidency doesn't count as an official SOTU).
In the article provided in class, you read a little about the history of the SOTU address. A Brief History of the State of the Union Address from Mental Floss is an interesting read that will give you more information about his this even has developed over time. Pay close attention to the precedents set (especially by Washington, Jefferson, and Wilson), because the ambiguity of constitutional requirement meant that Presidents have some flexibility.
Clearly, television has fundamentally changed how the SOTU is delivered. TV has also shifted the role of the speech in U.S. politics. While it used to be a speech (or letter) directed to Congress, television makes the speech more directed toward the American people in the presence of Congress. Check out these memorable State of the Union moments (Washington Post) and these memorable speeches (NBC). One thing you may notice is that in recent speeches, it is not always the speech itself that gets all the media attention, but things like guests of honor or the behavior of attendees (like this infamous shout from Rep. Wilson).
After you watch the speech, write a reaction and post it as a comment below. (Hint: write it in a document and then copy/paste.) In your reaction, respond to some or all of the topics below:
- Topics : Were the issues predictable? Did any of his topics, ideas, or opinions surprise you?
- Persuasiveness : Did you find Obama to be generally persuasive? On what topics was he most persuasive; on what topics was he least persuasive? Explain why you think so.
- What did you think of all the "pomp and circumstance?" (applause procedures, etc).
- Effect : Do you think this speech will have any effect on the congressional or national agenda?
- What did you think of the Republican response?
Also, please post a reply to at least 1 other student to further discuss the issues raised.
The pomp and circumstance got out of hand once in awhile with cutting obama off. Seems like some people had a hard time making up their minds. I think you shouldn’t clap if he just states something, but if he says something needs to be done then people should stand like when he says red tape should be cut. when he mentions the military i found it odd that everyone cheered. The crowd seemed to respect Obama because every time he asked for them to stop they would stop, but not when he tried to start talking again, which happened a lot in the beginning. Interrupting him did stop as the speech continued.
ReplyDeleteThe weirdest thing i noticed was that tv made a big difference, but now social media has taken hold and if you look you would understand what i mean. When the camera would screen across the congressmen, they would all stare at their laps on their phones tweeting about their thoughts on the topic.
Obama did a good job putting his ideas out there and supporting them with examples, he used to many ‘ifs’ and could have used more real life examples to help persuade. He did use hand gestures but they did not seem to have any purpose behind them. They were basic and helped in the way he did not just stand their. Let us know he was not getting bored. He also used morals or the “right thing to do”.
His topics seemed to be short snippets until he mentions ISIS or ISIL. The topics were very predictable, in the beginning he focused on the most disputed topics between the two parties. His topics then leaned more into the future more. When obama cooled down with the future he focused on more international relations. To wrap it all up Obama described how democracy should not be ran by lobbyists and we should cooperate more.
I do not think that the speech will change anything because it is an election year this year. Obama said it himself, legislation will not be very prominent this year due to it. He did however discuss how insulting people is not the way to go when trying to make world peace. I think those comments are going to be brought up as the election season goes on.
Was I the only person to find it interesting how our previous chapters in class where very informative for the ending of the speech?
Joshua Zauche
I found the issues fairly predictable. Economy, poverty, terrorism, climate change and clean energy, all fairly generic issues. I was surprised that he brought up Joe Biden’s initiative to cure cancer, as well as when he brought up his regret of not eliminating “toxic politics” during his presidency. I also thought that the fact that he shed light on the issue of islamophobia in current politics was an amazing thing for him to do(Also it was probably totally a jab at Trump.).
ReplyDeletePresident Obama is one of the most eloquent speakers we have had in a government position in a while. It is hard not to find him persuasive. There weren’t many partisan issues brought up tonight, so there wasn’t much room for partisanship and persuasion, but I do feel as though he influenced some thinking in people, though they won’t necessarily show it.
In reference to the pomp and circumstance, I found it interesting that Paul Ryan didn’t clap like ever. Ever. Paul. Whatcha doing? Like you can gossip with Joe Biden but you won’t clap unless you run the risk of getting called racist or it’s the end of the speech? I digress. The lack of democrats in Congress caused this year’s SOTU to be a bit quieter than in the past.
Considering that Congress is heavily Republican, I don’t think that many things will change. It is also difficult since this is an election year. I do hope that Biden’s cancer initiative will go somewhere, considering a lot of congresspeople stood and clapped when that was referenced.
The Republican response by Nikki Haley was bland and actually super hypocritical. Her response was generic and very obviously pre-written. It didn’t seem genuine. She used her position as a daughter of Indian immigrants to take a stance on immigration that I feel her parents wouldn’t be too proud of, though her “Army Husband,” as described by ABC News was probably glowing with more pride than a mother at a kindergarten graduation.
But really though. What was up with Paul Ryan? He turned into a Twitter meme. I kid you not. #SOTU #PaulRyan
I agree, President Obama is a great speaker. He is very influential and energetic.
DeleteHowever much flac Paul Ryan gets over his lack of applause, he will never be as sassy as John Boehner.
DeletePaul ryan kept his thoughts to himself, before the speech people said he was going to be quiet because he didn't want any flac
DeleteThe initiative to cure cancer was really interesting and new; I haven't heard on Obama mentioning that policy before. Also did you see that edit of Paul Ryan wearing a Joy Division shirt?
DeleteI expected many of the issues Obama brought up. However, I was surprised he brought up immigration because some blame can be placed on him for not enforcing current laws. I was also somewhat surprised by his mention of gay marriage as that’s somewhat controversial. I expected him to have a bunch of statistics on the economy. I was very surprised when he talked about curing cancer. He also surprised me by calling out people that deny global warming. I was also surprised how dismissive of China and Russia he was. It was interesting that he called for boots on the ground to take out ISIS. I was really surprised Obama didn’t make a bigger deal out of gun control.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t find him very persuasive. He seemed to mostly state vague things everybody can agree with. The times he let his more liberal viewpoint show through, I didn’t find it very persuasive either because those were still fairly vague. The most persuasive part was probably the part addressed to average citizens, telling them to vote and be more involved.
I found the applause kind of annoying after a while. It also seemed like they cut Obama off a lot. The standing and sitting was kind of funny as well. Some of the people seemed very stiff, and parts seemed overly formal.
I don’t think the speech will be that important. I think its main importance will be driving the debate to some of the issues laid out by Obama. I can’t see many of Obama’s ideas being supported by Congress though. I think they’ll be briefly discussed and then fade away.
I thought the Republican response was pretty good. The delivery was pretty bad though. She painted a pretty good picture of the Republican vision for America. I also liked that she brought up some legitimate criticisms of our government. I also liked her talk about immigration because it seemed like a more realistic position. I really liked that the Republican response was very short yet still informative.
I think that the reason he kept his statements vague was so he wouldn't insult either party. Also I would like to point out that when he was talking about immigration he was talking about reforming immigration laws.
DeleteI agree that's why he stayed vague. My problem with immigration is that because Obama doesn't agree with the current set, he has refused to enforce them in the past. That strikes me as a very bad thing.
DeleteWith gun control, I was surprised he didn't focus on that more, especially since mass shootings are becoming more common and more publicized. He only mentioned it once, twice in the very beginning.
DeleteThe issues which President Obama brought onto the table were fairly predictable. However, I would like to note how he tried to keep what he was saying vague so to not insult either party.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that he did not bring up diabetes when he was talking about curing diseases like cancer, malaria, or HIV. All of the diseases mentioned are killers. The amount of Diabetes cases diagnosed per year is increasing. Over 24 million people have type one and type two diabetes. While diabetes itself isn't a killer it can lead to other problems with heart complications.
I personally found it interesting the lack in applause, from the opposite party, for non political stances like creating more jobs or curing cancer. One would think the common goal of curing cancer would be something for applause.
I think that the congress will continue to be at a standstill because of political agenda and interest groups. People get so upset about Executive Actions yet this is the only way to get any action through congress at this time.
The thing with executive actions is that it goes both ways. In the Senate, the Democrat minority can stall most bills with filibusters. Anything that does make it through Congress is then vetoed. The problem is that once vetoed, the bill is pretty much dead as there aren't enough Republicans to override the veto. This means that we end up with gridlock in Congress. My problem with executive actions is that the president shouldn't make laws. Most of Obama's actions have been fine, but there are a few that could be considered as the president creating laws. I'd rather have no new laws than leave it up to the president to make laws.
DeleteI think that executive action is one of the few ways to get some good reform across the board, however it could be extremely risky if the president let the power go to his head. There would be almost no difference then between america and a country like north korea, because if the president was the only deciding factor it would turn into a dictatorship. That said, there is definitely a need for major reform in congress. Interest groups are too powerful, and the split between the parties widens everyday, with hope for compromise and the collective good for the people fading.
DeleteMost of the topics were pretty understandable in the fact that they need to be discussed, such as the economy, terrorism, education especially, climate change, and curing diseases, to name a few. I thought that it was kind of interesting how he spoke about acceptance so much, which was a very partisan move.
ReplyDeleteI found Obama vaguely persuasive. While he spoke about many topics that have a lot of efficacy, he was very vague on his own opinion. I think he was mainly just trying to bring up these topics for more discussion. Towards the end I think he was just trying to raise moral and didn’t really discuss anything of controversy or change.
I think the applause was overkill. There doesn’t need to be applause after almost every sentence. I do think it was quite interesting to watch who stood and who clapped, though, as this can help to determine who is on what side of an issue. It was really weird that some people didn’t clap for collective goods, such as curing diseases and education, so there might be some cause for concern there.
I think that this address probably will not have much of an impact, obama didn’t really say anything new, and he didn’t really define any clear, bipartisan solutions to the problems he spoke of. I think there were just a lot of glittering generalities.
I completely agree with you on the clapping! It was very annoying. I also thought it was interesting to see who all stood up and who didn't. I don't understand how education and curing cancer can be a bad thing? I thought that was very odd that not everyone stood up and clapped. I agree that Obama didn't really say anything new. I do think that he realizes he doesn't have much time left to make many changes and that is why he didn't propose any bipartisan solutions.
DeleteI honestly thought that the topics were pretty predictable. Not unimportant, but predictable. The economy, the energy crisis, global warming and foreign relations were talked about quite a lot. These problems are extremely important, and I’m glad they got the time that they did. I was, however, surprised when President Obama mentioned the Ebola Crisis.
ReplyDeleteI did think President Obama was very persuasive! I personally liked the way President Obama speaks. He is a very persuasive speaker, and great at giving speeches. Anyone who says otherwise is either biased or doesn’t know what a good speech is like. I think his most persuasive subject was on foreign relations, more specifically on terrorists and the muslim religion. He made me feel bad just for being a part of a country where there is a substantial group that believes that an entire religion is to blame for a radical few.
I thought the “applause procedures” were hilarious. It seems so dorky and fake to me that they have to stand up along with the clapping. It got annoying after a while. The applause would interrupt President Obama mid-sentence when I was interested and wanted him to finish!
I don’t know if it will have a big effect. I want it to! I thought President Obama had lots of good points! I want to see many of them put into effect! However, I feel like Republicans were busy nitpicking every word President Obama said, while Democrats were busy drooling over each point. I’m worried that these politicians are too deeply divided and hate the other side so much that they will oppose them simply because it was the other side that said it.
I too found the issues predictable, but then again, this is the end of his term without chance of incumbency. I was also surprised at the mention of the Ebola crisis.
DeleteThe applause procedure does seem fake, now that you mention it. I keep mentioning Paul Ryan, but he's the one who was on camera for most of the SOTU. I found it interesting that the Republicans are so loyal to their party that, even if they agree, they won't applaud or stand if it's even vaguely a partisan issue. This goes with what you said about the hatred between the parties, and what Obama said about his regretting the "toxic politics" during his presidency. I completely agree that the politicians are so caught up in their party that they are opposed to things their constituents agree with, just for the namesake.
I agree with your last point; as politicians, Congress may be too involved in partisan politics to really listen to Obama's speech. Congress has probably already made up their minds on most of the topics Obama mentioned, but their like or dislike of him probably influences their stances too, unfortunately.
DeleteI thought that most of the topics were predictable, but I was particularly interested in his look back at what has happened during his presidency and what has changed under him. You could definitely see his opinions shine when he brought up the campaigns and how politics have changed, and make obvious references to specific candidates.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that Obama was very persuasive. His main item for the overall speech was about what happened during his tenure, and saying some generic public good items for Congress. He really didn’t say how to solve any of the items, which is the real issue with why there is no legislation on them. He’s a good speaker, but his speech did not have much substance in the terms of change.
The applause was pretty annoying throughout, and it was really bad at the beginning, but then they seemed to get into a rhythm with when to clap, and when to stop. Although it was pretty funny to see certain sections of the house clap, while others just stay seated, especially with certain partisan issues.
I think that the speech will have no effect at all. I think that it was partly a nostalgia trip for Obama, and the other him just saying opinions that no one would really argue with. The Congress was really bland looking throughout and didn’t seem enthusiastic about anything really.
The Republican Response was really harsh on the presidential candidates, and especially Trump, by giving the overall views of what it means to be a Republican. Nikki Haley was not as good of a speaker as Obama, but that’s to be expected when the president has done seven of these before. Overall, it was just as uninformative as the rest of the speech, and didn’t suggest too much in the terms of legislation or immediate action.
I agree with everything that you said. I also believe that this was more of a nostalgic trip for Obama rather than a controversial speech to address change. There really wasn't much substance; however, I would argue that Obama was persuasive on foreign policy and our discrimination against Muslims. I also concur with your perspective of the pomp and circumstance - it was definitely annoying. It prolonged the speech a lot and it disrupted the flow of Obama's speech at times. I also think it was just unnecessary. I guess there were some benefits (making the politics more accessible and understandable), but overall, it was not very necessary.
DeleteMost of the topics President Obama talked about did not surprise me. I thought everything he talked about were things that most presidents would discuss at their last State of the Union Address. I do think that Obama is a powerful speaker. He really enunciated the points he wanted to get across. I really liked his point about how he wants politics to bring out the best in America, not the worst. I thought it was weird how some people wouldn’t stand and clap for things like education for all pre-k students or for America being the first to find a cure for cancer. I didn’t realize that those two things could be viewed as bad. The clapping got very frustrating for me. I do not know how Obama could stand trying to talk and having people keep clapping and clapping; it was very annoying.
ReplyDeleteObama made a very good point about making college affordable for everyone. This really reached out to me because in over a year I will be a college student who will wish college was way cheaper. Although that topic was important to me and something I think should happen, I don’t think it will happen. The reason why is because President Obama doesn’t have enough time left in office to make a change like that. He may have been persuasive, but time is hurting him and I don’t think much of what he wants done in this last year will actually be accomplished.
Governor Nikki Haley had an interesting response. She really attacked Obama on his “lack” of protecting America against ISIS. It was nice to see the Republican side of the topics discussed.
Yeah, I do agree that Pres. Obamama was pretty powerful during his speech and that he wanted to make an impact on Americans, probably also because it is his last State of the Union Address. College also did get to me because, like you said, we will be going into college in 2 years and with student loans and how much money needs to be saved, lowering the amount of money needed for college will save a lot of students (and parents) headaches in the future.
DeleteI think, like everyone else pretty much said, that the topics that were discussed were pretty much predictable. One of the things Pres. Obama talked about was the future and change, something that is thoroughly Democratic. He says that we live in an extraordinary change and that we and when America has been through big changes each time we are told to fear the future, and that each and every time America has overcome has overcome those fears.
ReplyDeleteAnother was about the economy and how the USA has the strongest economy in the world, and more about the change in economy in the future. When he was talking about the economy and the future, it wasn’t all surprising when he started saying that they need to cure cancer once and for all (America, that is, not any other nation), but it was surprising that not many Republicans did clap for that. You would think that curing cancer is universal, whether you are Republican or Democrat.
And then he goes on about how America is the best fighting nation (this is one of the few times that Paul Ryan stands up and applauds) and that it’s important of protect the American people and go after terrorist networks, saying “If you come after America we come after you.” He did sound pretty confident while giving that, which can make some people think that we can end the crisis in the Middle East and stop the fear of terrorists back at home.
Finally, one of the last topics was about leadership, which I thought was giving hints for the presidential candidates running for office. He believes that leadership is a “wise application on military power and rallying the world behind causes that are right.” So, he believes that he has done things right with leadership, and that he doesn’t regret it and think that it’s wrong. By the words “We the People” in the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, we are together and that we should prefect the Union. Democracy requires bonds of trust by its citizens, as well as government officials. “I believe in change just like I believe in you.”
There was no doubtfully a lot of pomp and circumstance throughout the whole speech. There was even times when Pres. Obama wanted to finish his sentence and you could clearly tell that he didn’t want people clapping exactly at that moment. He also had to talk over the clapping sometimes, trying to quiet them down because they were clapping for so long. And then at the end, there was the classic, “God bless America!” so to sound that he was fully patriotic and in support of this country.
As for the effect on Congress, I think change will come slower than Pres. Obama wants them to, because of there being more Republican and especially since the Speaker of the House is Republican also. But I really don’t know, because I don’t know what the future holds for America and what Congressmen will decide.
Many of the issues that he focused on were relatively predictable, which is to be expected; he should acknowledge salient topics, especially since the State of the Union is so televised. Speaking on terrorism, healthcare, illegal immigration, etc. is a given, since those are the topics on the forefront of American politics right now. Many of the issues he spoke about were very predictable, which honestly made the address a bit dull at times. A few of his topics were unexpected though; he mentioned student loans, climate change, and xenophobia (specifically Islamophobia). These topics aren’t necessarily the top headlines, yet Obama thought it was important to offer support and attention to these topics in his last major speech as president.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t call Obama persuasive necessarily; on valence issues his statements were rather vanilla and too broad to really persuade. When he moved onto issues that were partisan, he was probably very persuasive towards his constituents (Democrats), but he probably didn’t convince any Republicans. Since Obama is such a polarizing figure, his persuasion was especially good on his base and especially ineffective on his opponents. Obama doesn’t seem to utilize persuasion; he lays out an issue and takes a stance on it. His rhetoric is too straightforward. On climate change, he really hit it home with his evidence. If there was any time for a mic drop, it would be after he pointed out the futility in denying global warming. However on healthcare, Obama didn’t really feel quite persuasive. Many people have already made up their minds on “Obamacare”, and a few minutes of him speaking about it won’t change anyone’s mind at this point.
The “pomp and circumstance” was unnecessary and took away from the actual speech, in my opinion. While it’s fun to make fun of the clapping, the procession of people, and the awkwardness, it takes the focus off the substance of the address and reduces the State of the Union into a series of talking points (which may be inevitable anyway I guess). The whole unspoken rule of clapping every time the President says something mildly good, just seems very excessive. It’s been made worse since the SOTU has been televised, since the American people are probably more interested in partisan fights and humor than actually listening to what the Commander in Chief has to say. (I’m guilty of this too; the audience was too easy to make fun of.)
I’m going to be cynical here and say that the SOTU probably didn’t have a large impact on the congressional or public agenda. The issues Obama focused on are the issues people are already talking about. The SOTU has morphed into something different than what the Founders had in mind; congresspeople go the the SOTU, not to listen to the President’s input on legislation, but to televise their support or opposition to the President. Obama did have an impact of perhaps renewing attention on topics that aren’t very salient, but his impact on already big issues is small.
The Republican response paid particular attention to appealing to its constituency. On whatever topic Obama took a partisan stance on, Nikki Haley took the opposite. She focused quite a bit on immigration and terrorism, since both are very relevant topics. I felt that her emphasis on solidarity was again, pretty vanilla. I dislike it when politicians make an agreeable but vague statement. It’s rhetoric, but it’s empty. Her anecdote on the black church shooting in South Carolina was interesting and a very good move on her part. Her message about fixing the system was a bit too vague for my tastes but had a humble quality about it. I disagreed with her personally on several issues, but overall her speech was an appropriate and well thought out Republican response.
I think that the topics were pretty predictable - Obama has always been vocal about his stances on healthcare, global warming, and education. As this was the last State of the Union address, I felt that it was more of a review of Obama’s accomplishments during his presidency. At the same time, he also extended his ideas and policies to the future. However, he didn’t really bring up any new or unexpected points as many of his talking points were similar to his policies in the past.
ReplyDeleteAs for persuasiveness, Obama is an amazing public speaker and he was pretty persuasive. He added statistics (although I was not able to verify them) to reinforce his points and the entire Democratic Party supported his speech. I think that in many of his talking points, he wasn’t intending to persuade people. For example, everyone would like to find a cure for cancer; there really isn’t any persuading that needs to be done there. I think that his spiel about the Middle East and discrimination against muslims was very well-handled though; it was very clearly articulated and he was able to demonstrate that discrimination is anti-American. I think that he tried to make a point about gun control, but he really brushed over it and wasn’t willing to go in-depth in the topic. Although I am someone who favors gun control, I don’t think Obama did a good enough job of addressing this issue.
I think that the pomp and circumstance was overdone at times. However, it was very helpful for the viewer as it showed me where people stood on issues. I really think that it was weird that some Republicans refused to stand up or applause when cancer or education was being addressed. I felt like those were universal issues yet people like Paul Ryan never stood up (except for Obama’s part about American troops).
Although this was a very good speech, it probably will not make too much of an impact on the congressional or national agenda. They are all issues that are already near the top of the agenda. However, Obama’s speech probably didn’t sway anybody and it probably didn’t bring any issues to the forefront of Congressional attention. This coupled with the fact that Congress is a Republican Congress probably shows that there will not be much change at least until next year.
The Republican Response was pretty much the opposite of Obama’s stance on the most salient, partisan issues. This was pretty normal though - I felt like it was just the Republican duty to address their party platform. There were really no surprises.
As a side note, if anyone wants to check out an extremely biased version of the State of the Union Address, check out this link! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCXSO-3mt5I