State of the Union: Don't Overthink It?

There may now be scientific proof to the adage that you campaign in poetry but govern in prose.

According to a 2007 study of State of the Union speeches (brought to light today by a fascinating Washington Post article) pols running for office tend to give much simpler speeches than those governing.

From the Post:

The study found that in the first three years after a new president takes office, his speeches displayed higher levels of complexity compared with addresses in the fourth year in office. In the first three speeches, presidents were more likely to acknowledge other points of view, potential pitfalls and unintended consequences. In the fourth year, however -- as they were about to run for reelection -- the complexity of their speeches plunged.

Not only that, but American presidents who showed a sharper decline in complexity were more likely to be reelected than those who continued to acknowledge that the challenges facing the nation were complex.

In other words, when a president is up for re-election his verbiage becomes more declarative, more stark, more black-and-white. (Our current chief executive might say more decider-ated.)

The Post article includes an alternative explanation, that with the rise of presidential speechwriters State of the Union addresses are less presidentially reflective, but this betrays a lack of understanding of a president's role in writing his own speeches -- especially one as important as a State of the Union. (Lyndon Johnson once observed of a particularly unsatisfying State of the Union draft: "This goddamn draft they've given me wouldn't make chickens cackle if you waved it at 'em in the dark. ... I get the best minds in Washington together, and what do they come up with? Vomit. Fifty pages of vomit.")

(For more I recommend the forthcoming White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters by, well, me.)

The study, at least as described by the Post, doesn't say how presidents speak during their eighth presidential year. But I'd give real money to see Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer turn to one of the flapping mouths this evening and ask: "What do you think, Joe? Would Bush's speech make chickens cackle if you waved it at them in the dark?"

Comments

[Crowhaul]

I thought I would never see a president worse than Reagan (c'mon, you know, the guy who sold weapons to Iran), but I'm beginning to believe Bush's sulfur stench will linger long after he leaves office...

[RTIII]

Don't be fooled; Bush is far more sinister (and sophisticated) than his "image" would suggest. We may not yet have heard the last hurrah from this pariah.

[ez14livin]

my own response:

simpleton smirk
outsourcing work
neocon jerk
who is beserk

[Pippen]

Bush is lame and on his way out, Thank God.

The surge is not working, we paid the insurgents off in all the key townships so they could arm themselves and they are just waiting til the U.S. leaves and all hell will break loose.

The man can't tell the truth to save mother mary.

Lets see if Hillary harks the failure or success of the surge.

Lets see if Obama camp keeps echoing the vote against the war.

One thing I"ve noticed is the talking heads from the right wing fascists like Limbaugh and Hannity and Kristol on and on and one continue to attack Hillary as if she is was already nominated. They say soft things about Obama and condemn anyone who says something competitive about Obama.

The neo republican candidates both McCain and Romney prove to their adoring yelling nazis crowds how conservative they are by sending verbal body blows at Hillary.

Its very very clear in pattern. The republicans WANT OBAMA to seal the nomination. They want to go against Obama.

I think we'll lose our democratic edge if we send Obama.

I cant take another 4 much less 8 years of a republican in the white house.

We need to really analyze the electability of Obama and calm down about the so called support of Obama being vomitted forth on every media channel and huffpo.

Just before you cast your vote. Stop and take some time to really calculate if Obama can beat the red states.

Bill was right Jackson won SC.

[MinerSam]

As someone on NPR recentry stated: That the average waiter in Europe is able to have a more intelligent conversation about politics than most College Educated Americans..This in our nation where only 28% even have a college education.

When I read this it reminded me of the shock I had when Mr. Bush proudly declared: "I don't do nuance." And friends who are recovering from alcoholism (where recoverning is the operative word) told me that these comments had a ripple in that community.

And when analogy was recently taken out of the SATs..and the so called "Talking Heads" who work for the Republican dominated Corporate Media --are blatently projecting their own dysfunctions instead of educating the electorate about FACTS..small wonder those who are trying to get elected speak like morons.

Unless of course they are brilliant and experienced like Senator Clinton, whose campaign style has been to answer specific policy questions to thousands of Americans hungry to understand what needs to be to turn our ship of state around. Many of these can be seen on the C-SPAN site or the stations themselves.

[CenterLeftLawyer]

Watching him so far, he seems rushed. His tempo is very quick, almost like he wishes he was somewhere else (can you blame him).

On a substative policy point-how can he ask Congress to approve trade bargains with Columbia, etc, yet try to sign a military treaty with Iraq without going to the Senate?

Oh, I forgot, consistenly following the law are not his strong points!

[SubparDude]

:
Keep it simple?

I think (?) this guy can keep it very, very, utterly, unbearably simple.
: