A Response to the State of the Union Address of January 30, 2018



In the past, in addition to fulfilling Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the State of the Union Address conveyed policy information between the president and citizens as an account of victories, disappointments, and goals, all framed within a rhetoric of stability—a coach’s rally to the team before the game. However, that presumes the president has a role similar to that of a coach, someone who loves the game, honors the rules, respects the players, and knows the field. The current president is no such coach.

The president does not coach or govern, he is “handled” by his staff. Things would probably be worse if he did actually govern as his instability remains his most defining characteristic. So, the State of the Union Address was an assembly of words possibly written by Stephen Miller and someone else to help tone down the more overt white supremacist allusions and add a veneer of appeal for unity, something the GOP desperately needs before the midterm elections.

The State of the Union is so low that the President’s ability to read the teleprompter has been interpreted as a victory. The words themselves, do they indicate policy? Whenever Trump speaks, people flock to read the assemblage of nouns and verbs like tea leaves to divine if they make sense. The words represent the rhetorical skill and prejudices of the speech writers, not the State of the Union.

Have we not learned that this unqualified president, a corrupt caricature of a leader supported by a GOP that has betrayed the honor of our nation, represents naught but his own guile and not the gumption of our people? Arise America, the midterms await.





No comments: