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.

US Politics: Explaining Congress and "Obama's Downfall" to a Martian

Let us imagine that a Martian, “Marty”, dressing like a stand-up American and with the ability to read and speak English, has landed in Washington, D.C. He reads the politics pages in The Washington Post and scratches his head in wonderment. So he accosts a passer-by, “Kane”, who happens to be astute and neutral on choice of political party.

Marty: Excuse me, sir, but would you mind explaining some things in the newspaper?

Kane: I’ll do my best.

Marty: It says that the President has lost his healthcare legislation because the Democrats have lost a Senate seat. Is the President the loser?

Kane: I think the losers are the more than 30 million Americans who will be denied access to medical insurance if the Bill fails. That said, the legislation is not lost yet. Democrats still hold 59 of 100 seats in the Senate.

There is much they can do to save the bill but special interests have made it a mockery. The state of Nebraska got itself all sorts of exemptions for its senate vote. However, I think there is still all to play for.


Marty: Surely, the legislators shouldn’t play politics with people’s health.

Kane: You would think so. But this is D.C. where politics trumps all.

Marty: The newspaper also says that the President is out to get the banks and the bankers. Why?

Kane: In reality he isn’t. What he is seeking to do is to restore the position that lasted for 50 years until the Reagan Administration, separating high risk investment banks from low risk retail banks. He doesn’t want to penalise sensible lending.

Marty: What has happened?

Kane: Bankers are directly responsible for the crash of 2008 and its aftermath. They took huge lending risks not just on “sub-prime” mortgages where banks lent money on poor but over-valued property to borrowers who could not possibly afford to repay loans. They also lost hundreds of millions of shareholders' dollars in bad lending on commercial property, leisure developments, and other projects. And not one banker has yet been brought to book. Governments all over the world bailed out their banks who, instead of repaying debt when they made profits, have given huge bonuses to the people who got us into the mess in the first place.

Marty: So will the President legislate against the banks?

Kane: He doesn’t have to. He could sign an Executive Order to curtail bonuses and separate banks but Congress would probably overrule it.

Marty: So he’ll have to go to Congress?

Kane: Yes, and he has a majority in both houses. However, there is a problem. Banks support senators and Congressmen financially so legislators would bite the hand that feeds them by voting for the legislation.

What’s even worse is the Supreme Court decision, handed down last week, on campaign finance. Corporations are no longer constrained by the amounts they may give to politicians. So banks will support legislators who vote "favourably" and will threaten to withdraw support and give it elsewhere if they are challenged. As the banks are stuffed with cash, they will be able to advertise their chosen candidates into office.

The Court decision was awful; it was political. This is often the way. Ten years ago, the Supreme Court handed a Presidential election to its favoured candidate. It doesn’t end there. For example oil interests could provide huge sums to candidates for Congress and if those candidates become legislators, the environment protection the world needs would be at serious risk.

Marty: So your system has an Executive Branch where the President is in day-to-day charge with huge powers. However, he can be easily stymied and frustrated by the legislators. And even if he is not, the judiciary can put a spoke in the wheels and on political not legal grounds. What bright sparks thought up this Constitution?

Kane: There are all sorts of safety nets. For example, the President could try to find Congressmen to put through a different campaign finance law and, if that law was popular, seek a Constitutional Amendment to block the Supreme Court.

Marty: We don’t have this system where I come from, thank heavens.

Kane: Well, Obama’s not done yet. And he’s no fool. Watch this space.

And the moral? Winston Churchill had a point when he said, “democracy is the worst form of government……except for all the rest.”