Monday, January 24, 2011 - 6:39 PM

The State of the Union Address has, in keeping with all things American, gone all steroidal on us. In what used to be a humble effort to meet a Constitutional requirement that was once fulfilled with a message from George Washington that was not much longer than this post, we now find an extravaganza with national television coverage, pundits commenting on the reaction of pundits, an official opposition response, its own logo and theme music on the networks, and a host of set pieces (like the First Lady's box filled with notable Americans with heart-warming stories -- this year, that's means heroes and victims of the Tucson shooting.) It's got just enough calculated drama and just as little connection to the day-to-day life of average citizens to actually be a reality show. The only problem is there is not enough drinking. (But we will take care of that shortly.)
In fact, typically, the State of the Union Address is the political equivalent of the Super Bowl: A mid-winter ritual that combines hype, meaninglessness and boredom in equal parts. If only the president's address had good advertisements to liven up the action ... but maybe next year... (I'd love to see the Budweiser Clydesdale's take on health care reform.)
To help alleviate this, as a public service, let me offer the following score sheet. Simply watch (or listen to) the address and score per the instructions. Then see the key below to interpret the speech. The objective is to help determine whether the speech rises to the level of something actually newsworthy (not to mention worthy of the time of the president, his cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the news media and, most important of all, viewing audiences across America.) The scoring approach is simple: the president gets points for actually rising to the potential of the occasion and has them deducted for pandering, filling time, engaging in empty rhetoric, or worse. The score sheet is broken into several categories corresponding to different dimensions of the speech.
Leadership
Foreign Policy
Domestic Policy:
Politics:
Intangibles:
The scoring key is:
50 points or more: Rooseveltian (pick your favorite
Roosevelt)
40-49 points: Reaganesque (or Truman-esque, you pick)
30-39 points: Kennedy-esque (pick your favorite Kennedy)
20-29 points:
Eisenhower-esque (What he
lacked in style he made up for in substance)
10-19 points: Clinton-esque (I'd rate him
higher but I served then...don't want to appear biased)
0-9 points: Bush 41-esque (He was a better president than his speeches)
-1-10 points: Carter-esque or Ford-esque (In the
interest of bi-partisanship)
-11-20 points: Bush 43-esque (He was not as good as
his speeches)
-21-30 points: Nixonian (It's complicated...)
-31-40 points: James Buchanan-esque
Below -40 points: Introducing your next president, Mitt Romney
If this doesn't work, try the State of the Union drinking game. This year's key word is: civility. Any use of this word, a variant of it, or concepts associated with it, and you take a drink. Any bi-partisan applause, you take a drink. Any breakdowns in civility or displays of partisanship, you take two drinks. I say you're unconscious even before those Americans who pass out due to boredom. However, if you seek an even quicker buzz, switch to the Advanced SOTU Drinking program where you can take a drink every time the words job or any employment related term or concept is mentioned. Don't hesitate to share your colorful drinking game stories.
TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images
Pass the jagger bombs. That's the only way I can stomach Obama telling me he's concerned about my middle class family because his actions scream he doesn't give a damn!
Like a lot of David Rothkopf's posts, this post takes almost as much effort to get through as a typical State of the Union address. I don't know why he doesn't at least try to get himself an editor.
From what I'm hearing, this year's SoTU drinking game should be based on the word "competitiveness."
Yes, I think Obama is going to unveil his plan for helping American corporations compete both with foreign corporations and American workers.
After registering here, and after a lot of lookups on bloggers and articles, I chose to read this one 1st. And I bet - one of the most well written ones. Too good sir. Liked your style of writing a lot.
~J~
I'm a bit more than half way through your Superclass book and I think it provides a valuable perspective from a quasi insider. You present pretty damning evidence that the world is in fact run by just a few thousand at great cost to democracy. The book is presented in a similar manner as the great social critic C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and much of your conclusions are down the same lines as his. (Keep in mind I haven't finished the book yet.)
So, I looked you up and found this blog. I'm forced to admit that I'm disappointed to see your political positions are in the same place as such other prominent centrist democrats as Robert Rubin. Spokesmen for this group tend to be very wealthy insiders and are often associated with Wall Street. They can occasionally sound populist but the reality is that they refuse to offer anything but cliches or completely irrelevant tweaks. Although far more benign than those of the extreme right, they may actually hurt the cause of the majority / democracy more since the views are more subtle and not as obviously beneficial to a particular class. The views can sound reasonable and moderate but the reality is that they perpetuate a system in which power and wealth is controlled by very very people.
The game of this post is a good example. Many of the 5 pointers do direct harm to the majority population and I see nothing that would directly reduce the power of concentrated wealth. Like all policies, one can argue that they indirectly will help the majority but that's a real stretch. Here's some of the undemocratic 5 pointers: reducing public spending, cutting "entitlements" (i.e. old age security and health care), support for the view that corporate competitiveness should be the key driver, promotion of "free" trade, an attachment to eliminating the "deficit" (which I argue is a completely false concern in a fiat currency regime), reducing business regulation, a high regard for "bipartisanship" with a party so clearly representing nothing but wealth, and no mention of sharp increases in progressive income taxes.
I find the inconsistency between your book which raises concerns right out of the pages of C. Wright Mills and even Karl Marx and your real world views very striking.
Jim
http://commentsongpe.wordpress.com
After reading your rules, it goes against my better judgement to use vodka as the staple drink of this game, I will instead do the smart thing and grab beer. Then, maybe later on, I'll switch to vodka.
Also, I feel like the post-speech commentaries can also be made into drinking games fairly easily.
David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE