US Politics: Sitting/Standing at Obama's State of the Union

On Sunday afternoon, I will be at The Emirates Stadium in London, watching Arsenal v Manchester United in football ("soccer"). Since I am a Tottenham Hotspur fan, so why would I do this?Well, I could watch the game from the comfort of my armchair, rooting against both teams, but nothing beats watching an event live and in person.

I feel the same about Wednesday night’s State of the Union address by President Obama. The BBC television coverage's was fine, but most of the time, there was no way of knowing who was up and who was down. If only I had been in the Capitol chamber, I could have gotten a better reading of the politics, just by watching the ritual of members of Congress demonstrating their feelings by either standing or remaining firmly seated during the address.

I don‘t know when the tradition of standing and repetitive applauding for the President during the State of the Union started. On this occasion, Congress’s version of aerobics began after Obama’s long, uninterrupted opening. Once members started applauding, they were up and down with considerable frequency as the President took them through his plans for jobs, financial reform, civil rights, nuclear weapons, Iraq and Afghanistan, education, reduction of the deficit, health care, and gays in the military.

A Gut Reaction to Obama’s “State of The Union” & Foreign Policy: Ignoring the Kids in the Backseat
Video & Transcript: President Obama’s State of the Union Address (27 January)

Measured through the BBC's restricted perspective, how did he do? Well, this was a tour de force. Obama is a brilliant speaker but, let's be blunt, he also compares incredibly well with his predecessor. On this night, Obama was Presidential.

Still, there were quirks in the presentation. By tradition, one Cabinet member is left behind in the White House, a precaution in case all the others are wiped out by some disaster or nefarious activity during the speech. I did not see the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in the audience. Surely Obama did not choose her to hold the fort! [Editor: Fret not. Clinton was in London for talks on Afghanistan, Yemen, and Iran.] Then there were the military brass hats who were present. Perhaps it doesn’t matter if they are all wiped out, especially if they keep giving Obama stony-faced looks, as they did when he brought up the issues of gays serving in the armed forces.

And there was a bit of controversy. Obama, a constitutional law expert, took on the judiciary. “With due deference to separation of powers,” he said, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that…will open the floodgates for special interests…to spend without limit in our elections…I urge [Congress] to pass a bill to correct the problem.” For 30 seconds, the cameras fixed on the Supremes, so I do not know which legislators stood or sat, as the judges remained immobile. That would have been useful information.

And there were the signs of the White House's building battle with Congress. Earlier in his speech, Obama spoke of sending a bill to Congress on job creation. Within minutes, Republicans peremptorily dismissed the proposal, expressing no interest in using $30 billion in bank bailout money for business tax credits.

I wonder whether Obama looks enviously at Gordon Brown. The British set piece equivalent of State of the Union is the Opening of Parliament, when Elizabeth II reads the Queen’s Speech, detailing the government’s legislation package for the following parliamentary session, in the chamber of the House of Lords. The speech is effectively written by the Prime Minister and his inner cabinet. Her Majesty just reads it. All members of the House of Commons gather, standing, at the back of the chamber while the Lords are seated. There is rarely any question as to whether the bills will pass. Government majorities and whips will see to that. So no stand/sit dilemma here.

So two cheers for Obama and three cheers for the British in the stand/sit debate. The American practice wastes time. It is irritating and childish. Standing ovations should be reserved are for glorious feats in a Test Cricket Match (especially versus Australia), scoring a winning goal in football ("soccer"), and the awarding of an Oscar. Ovations during a speech reduce and devalue it. And for members to divide politically when their President calls upon them to show leadership, not partisanship, is downright offensive, not just to the President but to the electorate.

Still, next time BBC, give me a wide-angle view.

Comments

[WitteKr]

Scott,

As much as I appreciate your analysis of the BBC reporting on Obama's State of the Union, I miss - on this very much appreciated website - an analysis on CNN's live coverage of Tony Blair giving evidence at the Iraq hearing... And I don't mean wide angles or close-ups.
As Time reported yesterday: "Unbowed on Iraq, Blair Makes the Case for Targeting Iran" (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1957769,00.html#ixzz0e5oJ8dKW)

July last year there were many reports on the outcome of the interrogations of Saddam Hussein by the FBI. To quote one of them: "FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran" (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56113O20090702)

It surprises me that there is very little reporting on the connection between the two. Why did Saddam 'play' the West and why is Iran doing the same today? It seems to me big powers are paying far to little attention to 'local' power struggles. And if we don't connect the dots, we will never learn (which is why the UK - and for that matter recently also the Netherlands,where it was concluded that Dutch support for the invasion of Iraq was unlawful - are organising these inquests.)
Any thoughts on that?

By the way, a BBC reporter was also complaining about TV coverage of the inquest: since he was in the room with Blair he could report the mans' hands were shaking at the start. I wouldn't haven known if the reporter hadn't told me: I saw no close-ups...

Enjoy the match!

[Catherine]

I, too, have been wondering at the absence of Iraq-related coverage on EA. I believe it was covered extensively in the early days of the blog, right? I sent in some articles and reports related to the start of the UK Iraq hearings, but they weren't used, so I didn't send in anything on the one in the Netherlands. There's also an election coming up in Iraq which is generating loads of controversy because parties and individuals considered somehow linked to the old Bathists are - Iran style - being banned from running in the election.

[Scott Lucas]

Catherine/WitteKr,

You are absolutely right to pull us up on the lack of attention to the UK Iraq hearings. I have followed them but, partly out of devotion of time and resources to other stories and partly out of frustration and anger at the recycling of lies/distortions by former Prime Minister Blair, have refrained from comment.

I intend to make amends by Monday. In the meantime, I would be grateful for any information and comment that EA readers could send in.

S.

[WitteKr]

Thanks Scott for your reply.
Please understand I'm utterly grateful for all the time you are putting into informing us and keeping us up to date regarding developments in Iran (and surrounding countries).

And I really hope you will enjoy the match - and relax!

In case anyone is wondering what the Dutch and the Brits connect - in case of inquests on Iraq - this might be a nice article: http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/balkenende-and-iraq-davids-and-goliath.