Talking the Talk

The State of the Union address was yesterday, and today there were multiple fundraising e-mails in my inbox, laying out the partisan talking points that people would only hear if they coughed up some money, apparently. It makes sense that I would see a spike in fundraising appeals, since the address captures so much media attention, but it all left me with a question.

Just who, exactly, is the State of the Union address (and the opposition response, for that matter) for?

I get that for the President, it's basically a chance for self-promotion that the media will carry and talk about, and for the opposition, it's the opportunity to get someone in front of the camera who might not otherwise have such a large stage, but who would miss the State of the Union were it to go on hiatus and simply never resume? For whom is the address actually important?

Sure, a lot of different actors have turned it to their own advantage. As I noted the President was able to get up and tell the story the nation that he wanted voters to share. The Democrats were able show themselves protesting during the address, and spotlight Abigail Spanberger as a spokesperson. The media was able to show loyalty to their audiences by highlighting either their uncritical acceptance of the President's speech or their often-ignored fact-checking of same, and fundraisers were able to cherry pick the parts that seemed the most likely to prompt partisans to open their wallets.

But just about any speech by a sitting President can accomplish these goals. There's nothing genuinely informative about the State of the Union; it's generally a recitation of White House talking points that everyone already knows. So why bother with it?

It seems like a relic that exists now because it existed then, and no-one wants to be the person who asks what purpose it serves.